Search Results

Search found 78 results on 4 pages for 'uat'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • UAT Testing for SOA 10G Clusters

    - by [email protected]
    A lot of customers ask how to verify their SOA clusters and make them production ready. Here is a list that I recommend using for 10G SOA Clusters. v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} Test cases for each component - Oracle Application Server 10G General Application Server test cases This section is going to cover very General test cases to make sure that the Application Server cluster has been set up correctly and if you can start and stop all the components in the server via opmnct and AS Console. Test Case 1 Check if you can see AS instances in the console Implementation 1. Log on to the AS Console --> check to see if you can see all the nodes in your AS cluster. You should be able to see all the Oracle AS instances that are part of the cluster. This means that the OPMN clustering worked and the AS instances successfully joined the AS cluster. Result You should be able to see if all the instances in the AS cluster are listed in the EM console. If the instances are not listed here are the files to check to see if OPMN joined the cluster properly: $ORACLE_HOME\opmn\logs{*}opmn.log*$ORACLE_HOME\opmn\logs{*}opmn.dbg* If OPMN did not join the cluster properly, please check the opmn.xml file to make sure the discovery multicast address and port are correct (see this link  for opmn documentation). Restart the whole instance using opmnctl stopall followed by opmnctl startall. Log on to AS console to see if instance is listed as part of the cluster. Test Case 2 Check to see if you can start/stop each component Implementation Check each OC4J component on each AS instanceStart each and every component through the AS console to see if they will start and stop.Do that for each and every instance. Result Each component should start and stop through the AS console. You can also verify if the component started by checking opmnctl status by logging onto each box associated with the cluster Test Case 3 Add/modify a datasource entry through AS console on a remote AS instance (not on the instance where EM is physically running) Implementation Pick an OC4J instanceCreate a new data-source through the AS consoleModify an existing data-source or connection pool (optional) Result Open $ORACLE_HOME\j2ee\<oc4j_name>\config\data-sources.xml to see if the new (and or the modified) connection details and data-source exist. If they do then the AS console has successfully updated a remote file and MBeans are communicating correctly. Test Case 4 Start and stop AS instances using opmnctl @cluster command Implementation 1. Go to $ORACLE_HOME\opmn\bin and use the opmnctl @cluster to start and stop the AS instances Result Use opmnctl @cluster status to check for start and stop statuses.  HTTP server test cases This section will deal with use cases to test HTTP server failover scenarios. In these examples the HTTP server will be talking to the BPEL console (or any other web application that the client wants), so the URL will be _http://hostname:port\BPELConsole Test Case 1  Shut down one of the HTTP servers while accessing the BPEL console and see the requested routed to the second HTTP server in the cluster Implementation Access the BPELConsoleCheck $ORACLE_HOME\Apache\Apache\logs\access_log --> check for the timestamp and the URL that was accessed by the user. Timestamp and URL would look like this 1xx.2x.2xx.xxx [24/Mar/2009:16:04:38 -0500] "GET /BPELConsole=System HTTP/1.1" 200 15 After you have figured out which HTTP server this is running on, shut down this HTTP server by using opmnctl stopproc --> this is a graceful shutdown.Access the BPELConsole again (please note that you should have a LoadBalancer in front of the HTTP server and configured the Apache Virtual Host, see EDG for steps)Check $ORACLE_HOME\Apache\Apache\logs\access_log --> check for the timestamp and the URL that was accessed by the user. Timestamp and URL would look like above Result Even though you are shutting down the HTTP server the request is routed to the surviving HTTP server, which is then able to route the request to the BPEL Console and you are able to access the console. By checking the access log file you can confirm that the request is being picked up by the surviving node. Test Case 2 Repeat the same test as above but instead of calling opmnctl stopproc, pull the network cord of one of the HTTP servers, so that the LBR routes the request to the surviving HTTP node --> this is simulating a network failure. Test Case 3 In test case 1 we have simulated a graceful shutdown, in this case we will simulate an Apache crash Implementation Use opmnctl status -l to get the PID of the HTTP server that you would like forcefully bring downOn Linux use kill -9 <PID> to kill the HTTP serverAccess the BPEL console Result As you shut down the HTTP server, OPMN will restart the HTTP server. The restart may be so quick that the LBR may still route the request to the same server. One way to check if the HTTP server restared is to check the new PID and the timestamp in the access log for the BPEL console. BPEL test cases This section is going to cover scenarios dealing with BPEL clustering using jGroups, BPEL deployment and testing related to BPEL failover. Test Case 1 Verify that jGroups has initialized correctly. There is no real testing in this use case just a visual verification by looking at log files that jGroups has initialized correctly. Check the opmn log for the BPEL container for all nodes at $ORACLE_HOME/opmn/logs/<group name><container name><group name>~1.log. This logfile will contain jGroups related information during startup and steady-state operation. Soon after startup you should find log entries for UDP or TCP.Example jGroups Log Entries for UDPApr 3, 2008 6:30:37 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.protocols.UDP createSockets ·         INFO: sockets will use interface 144.25.142.172·          ·         Apr 3, 2008 6:30:37 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.protocols.UDP createSockets·          ·         INFO: socket information:·          ·         local_addr=144.25.142.172:1127, mcast_addr=228.8.15.75:45788, bind_addr=/144.25.142.172, ttl=32·         sock: bound to 144.25.142.172:1127, receive buffer size=64000, send buffer size=32000·         mcast_recv_sock: bound to 144.25.142.172:45788, send buffer size=32000, receive buffer size=64000·         mcast_send_sock: bound to 144.25.142.172:1128, send buffer size=32000, receive buffer size=64000·         Apr 3, 2008 6:30:37 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.protocols.TP$DiagnosticsHandler bindToInterfaces·          ·         -------------------------------------------------------·          ·         GMS: address is 144.25.142.172:1127·          ------------------------------------------------------- Example jGroups Log Entries for TCPApr 3, 2008 6:23:39 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.blocks.ConnectionTable start ·         INFO: server socket created on 144.25.142.172:7900·          ·         Apr 3, 2008 6:23:39 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.protocols.TP$DiagnosticsHandler bindToInterfaces·          ·         -------------------------------------------------------·         GMS: address is 144.25.142.172:7900------------------------------------------------------- In the log below the "socket created on" indicates that the TCP socket is established on the own node at that IP address and port the "created socket to" shows that the second node has connected to the first node, matching the logfile above with the IP address and port.Apr 3, 2008 6:25:40 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.blocks.ConnectionTable start ·         INFO: server socket created on 144.25.142.173:7901·          ·         Apr 3, 2008 6:25:40 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.protocols.TP$DiagnosticsHandler bindToInterfaces·          ·         ------------------------------------------------------·         GMS: address is 144.25.142.173:7901·         -------------------------------------------------------·         Apr 3, 2008 6:25:41 PM org.collaxa.thirdparty.jgroups.blocks.ConnectionTable getConnectionINFO: created socket to 144.25.142.172:7900  Result By reviewing the log files, you can confirm if BPEL clustering at the jGroups level is working and that the jGroup channel is communicating. Test Case 2  Test connectivity between BPEL Nodes Implementation Test connections between different cluster nodes using ping, telnet, and traceroute. The presence of firewalls and number of hops between cluster nodes can affect performance as they have a tendency to take down connections after some time or simply block them.Also reference Metalink Note 413783.1: "How to Test Whether Multicast is Enabled on the Network." Result Using the above tools you can confirm if Multicast is working  and whether BPEL nodes are commnunicating. Test Case3 Test deployment of BPEL suitcase to one BPEL node.  Implementation Deploy a HelloWorrld BPEL suitcase (or any other client specific BPEL suitcase) to only one BPEL instance using ant, or JDeveloper or via the BPEL consoleLog on to the second BPEL console to check if the BPEL suitcase has been deployed Result If jGroups has been configured and communicating correctly, BPEL clustering will allow you to deploy a suitcase to a single node, and jGroups will notify the second instance of the deployment. The second BPEL instance will go to the DB and pick up the new deployment after receiving notification. The result is that the new deployment will be "deployed" to each node, by only deploying to a single BPEL instance in the BPEL cluster. Test Case 4  Test to see if the BPEL server failsover and if all asynch processes are picked up by the secondary BPEL instance Implementation Deploy a 2 Asynch process: A ParentAsynch Process which calls a ChildAsynchProcess with a variable telling it how many times to loop or how many seconds to sleepA ChildAsynchProcess that loops or sleeps or has an onAlarmMake sure that the processes are deployed to both serversShut down one BPEL serverOn the active BPEL server call ParentAsynch a few times (use the load generation page)When you have enough ParentAsynch instances shut down this BPEL instance and start the other one. Please wait till this BPEL instance shuts down fully before starting up the second one.Log on to the BPEL console and see that the instance were picked up by the second BPEL node and completed Result The BPEL instance will failover to the secondary node and complete the flow ESB test cases This section covers the use cases involved with testing an ESB cluster. For this section please Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} follow Metalink Note 470267.1 which covers the basic tests to verify your ESB cluster.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better approach in migrating SIT SVN to UAT SVN?

    - by huahsin68
    In web development, given a same piece of source code, and being deploy to SIT (system integration testing) SVN/WAS and UAT (user acceptance testing) SVN/WAS. Please take note that I am using Jenkins to build everything. I have already ensured the transition from SIT SVN to UAT SVN are sync by doing manual diff on the 2 directory. Usually I will ensure the SIT WAS is working fine then only deploy to UAT WAS. But now there is a problem show up in UAT WAS and it is working fine in SIT WAS. I am suspecting there is a migration fault happened between SIT SVN to UAT SVN. In such a given scenario, is there a better approach to handle this problem?

    Read the article

  • Automated UAT/functional tests on Swing applications without source code

    - by jas
    Our team is now working on a big Swing application. Our job basically focuses on writing extensions to the existing framework. A typical job would be adding a new panel/ or adding a new tab with some extra functionalities that suit our need. It seems FEST can help a lot in terms of unit-test our code. I am going to try it out this week. But the question here is if there is a way to do automated functional testing on the whole application. In another word, we do not only need to test our code but also the framework. After all, UAT is the most important part. I am currently considering decompiling the jar files we got into source code then we can identify the components and then use FEST. So, before I get started to give this approach a shot, I think I just ask for ideas and inspirations here. There must be people who have done similar things before. Would be nice if I could learn from the veterans who fought against this before . Thanks,

    Read the article

  • How do i deploy UAT and Development SharePoint solution on the same server ?

    - by Nikhil Vaghela
    I am working on a SharePoint 2010 Server and i have following items in my SharePoint solution Couple of web parts State Machine Work flow (which will be integrated to an Infopath form library) Infopath task edit forms Lets say this solutions is deployed to http://[SharePoint201Server]:[PortNumber-x]/ This is the only server i have (No extra server for UAT), and what ever has been done so far needs to be given for user acceptance testing (UAT). I may create one more site at http://[SharePoint201Server]:[PortNumber-y]/ for it. My problme is that how do i maintain two copies of my source code ? I will have to continue development on the same set of source code for next UAT release. I simply can not create simple copies of the source code as it will have same Assembly name and feature id, etc..As if i do so, any changes on under Development source code would affect UAT assemblies. One thing i can do is to create seperate projects for UAT and Development with different Features and Assembly names, but is not that too much of an unneccesory work ? What can be the best approach in such situation ?

    Read the article

  • HDFC Bank's Journey to Oracle Private Database Cloud

    - by Nilesh Agrawal
    One of the key takeaways from a recent post by Sushil Kumar is the importance of business initiative that drives the transformational journey from legacy IT to enterprise private cloud. The journey that leads to a agile, self-service and efficient infrastructure with reduced complexity and enables IT to deliver services more closely aligned with business requirements. Nilanjay Bhattacharjee, AVP, IT of HDFC Bank presented a real-world case study based on one such initiative in his Oracle OpenWorld session titled "HDFC BANK Journey into Oracle Database Cloud with EM 12c DBaaS". The case study highlighted in this session is from HDFC Bank’s Lending Business Segment, which comprises roughly 50% of Bank’s top line. Bank’s Lending Business is always under pressure to launch “New Schemes” to compete and stay ahead in this segment and IT has to keep up with this challenging business requirement. Lending related applications are highly dynamic and go through constant changes and every single and minor change in each related application is required to be thoroughly UAT tested certified before they are certified for production rollout. This leads to a constant pressure in IT for rapid provisioning of UAT databases on an ongoing basis to enable faster time to market. Nilanjay joined Sushil Kumar, VP, Product Strategy, Oracle, during the Enterprise Manager general session at Oracle OpenWorld 2012. Let's watch what Nilanjay had to say about their recent Database cloud deployment. “Agility” in launching new business schemes became the key business driver for private database cloud adoption in the Bank. Nilanjay spent an hour discussing it during his session. Let's look at why Database-as-a-Service(DBaaS) model was need of the hour in this case  - Average 3 days to provision UAT Database for Loan Management Application Silo’ed UAT environment with Average 30% utilization Compliance requirement consume UAT testing resources DBA activities leads to $$ paid to SI for provisioning databases manually Overhead in managing configuration drift between production and test environments Rollout impact/delay on new business initiatives The private database cloud implementation progressed through 4 fundamental phases - Standardization, Consolidation, Automation, Optimization of UAT infrastructure. Project scoping was carried out and end users and stakeholders were engaged early on right from planning phase and including all phases of implementation. Standardization and Consolidation phase involved multiple iterations of planning to first standardize on infrastructure, db versions, patch levels, configuration, IT processes etc and with database level consolidation project onto Exadata platform. It was also decided to have existing AIX UAT DB landscape covered and EM 12c DBaaS solution being platform agnostic supported this model well. Automation and Optimization phase provided the necessary Agility, Self-Service and efficiency and this was made possible via EM 12c DBaaS. EM 12c DBaaS Self-Service/SSA Portal was setup with required zones, quotas, service templates, charge plan defined. There were 2 zones implemented - Exadata zone  primarily for UAT and benchmark testing for databases running on Exadata platform and second zone was for AIX setup to cover other databases those running on AIX. Metering and Chargeback/Showback capabilities provided business and IT the framework for cloud optimization and also visibility into cloud usage. More details on UAT cloud implementation, related building blocks and EM 12c DBaaS solution are covered in Nilanjay's OpenWorld session here. Some of the key Benefits achieved from UAT cloud initiative are - New business initiatives can be easily launched due to rapid provisioning of UAT Databases [ ~3 hours ] Drastically cut down $$ on SI for DBA Activities due to Self-Service Effective usage of infrastructure leading to  better ROI Empowering  consumers to provision database using Self-Service Control on project schedule with DB end date aligned to project plan submitted during provisioning Databases provisioned through Self-Service are monitored in EM and auto configured for Alerts and KPI Regulatory requirement of database does not impact existing project in queue This table below shows typical list of activities and tasks involved when a end user requests for a UAT database. EM 12c DBaaS solution helped reduce UAT database provisioning time from roughly 3 days down to 3 hours and this timing also includes provisioning time for database with production scale data (ranging from 250 G to 2 TB of data) - And it's not just about time to provision,  this initiative has enabled an agile, efficient and transparent UAT environment where end users are empowered with real control of cloud resources and IT's role is shifted as enabler of strategic services instead of being administrator of all user requests. The strong collaboration between IT and business community right from planning to implementation to go-live has played the key role in achieving this common goal of enterprise private cloud. Finally, real cloud is here and this cloud is accompanied with rain (business benefits) as well ! For more information, please go to Oracle Enterprise Manager  web page or  follow us at :  Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Linkedin | Newsletter

    Read the article

  • Source control issue with deploying versions

    - by Bonefisher
    Hi all, we have this discussion about how to deploy to production revisions that are UAT closed without revisions with UAT not-closed status. We are using SVN and we figured out that we are not able to just take revisions without prior-revisions on the same file made. Let me explain it on this example: we have 3 revisions made on same file: r1: UAT closed (ready to deploy) r2: UAT not-closed (not ready) r3: UAT closed (ready to deploy) now I want to deploy only my changes for which the UAT is closed (e.g. r1 and r3). In SVN this is not possible because r3 contains also r2 changes.. How do you made this to work? Maybe branching? Or just take r1 and wait until r2 is UAT closed? thanks

    Read the article

  • delivery mechanism, Rational ClearCase

    - by kadaba
    Hi All, We came up with a stream structure for the Rational ClearCase UCM model. We recently migrated the code base into the new setup. We had three different code bases, i.e. three physical code bases. The way migration was done in this way. we moved the production code first, created a baseline. Then the uat code and created a baseline and then the development code and created a baseline. As of now the integration stream has the latest baseline that is the development baseline. Now we have other two streams for the prd and the uat from which the release will be done in the respective environments. I have my dev stream now. I create an activity and make some changes. now I need to promote these changes into the uat environment. If I deliver the changes to the integration stream, merge is done but on a development basline. I do not want to rebase it to uat as many development apps wil get rebased into the uat which is not desired. How do I achieve promoting changes to the uat environment(uat stream). kindly advice.

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Web Farm Framework 502 error

    - by hermiod
    My apologies if this is a really stupid question, but I have installed and set up the new Microsoft Web Farm Framework in a UAT environment with a controller machine, a primary, and a secondary server. I have installed one of our in-house applications on to the primary server and it has been successfully provisioned across to the secondary. I have tried accessing the server via the url http:\mis-uat-002\testfarm\reviewer where mis-uat-002 is the name of the farm controller, testfarm is the name of the farm, and reviewer is the name of the application. When using this url I get a "502 - Web server received an invalid response while acting as a gateway or proxy server." error. If I access the application directly via http:\mis-uat-003\reviewer (mis-uat-003 is the primary farm server, reviewer is the application) then it works no problem. Is there some additional set up that needs to be done in order for the farm controller to do its job? It should be noted that this is a UAT environment so is not on a domain of any sort. However, if this was successful and the WFF came out with V1.0 fairly soon, we would be looking to run this on a Windows 2008 domain.

    Read the article

  • How to know the source of certain TCP traffic on AIX

    - by A.Rashad
    We have two AIX boxes, one for production system and another for testing. both systems are running ATM machine switches, where the ATM device is connected via TCP socket. we had an issue on production system where the machine would power off or get disconnected but the netstat -na | grep <IP of machine > would still mention that the socket is up when simulated that case on the UAT environment, the problem did not happen, where the socket would terminate in 3 to 5 minutes. when sniffed on the traffic between the machine and ATM we found that no traffic takes place on production while there is some sort of heartbeat on UAT. but it is not initiated by the application. $>tcpdump | grep -v "10.2.2.71" | grep -v "HSRP" | grep "10.3.1.30" tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on en6, link-type 1, capture size 96 bytes 09:08:13.323421 IP server073.afs3-callback > 10.3.1.30.impera: . 278204201:278204202(1) ack 3307884029 win 164 09:08:13.335334 IP 10.3.1.30.impera > server073.afs3-callback: . ack 1 win 64180 09:08:23.425771 IP 10.3.1.30.impera > server073.afs3-callback: . 1:2(1) ack 1 win 64180 09:08:23.425789 IP server073.afs3-callback > 10.3.1.30.impera: . ack 2 win 65535 09:09:13.628985 IP server073.afs3-callback > 10.3.1.30.impera: . 0:1(1) ack 1 win 164 09:09:13.633900 IP 10.3.1.30.impera > server073.afs3-callback: . ack 1 win 64180 09:09:23.373634 IP 10.3.1.30.impera > server073.afs3-callback: . 1:2(1) ack 1 win 64180 09:09:23.373647 IP server073.afs3-callback > 10.3.1.30.impera: . ack 2 win 65535 while on production, that traffic is not there. we want to know where this traffic is initiated from to implement on production to sense disconnection our comms parameters are: tcp_keepcnt = 2 tcp_keepidle = 100 tcp_keepinit = 150 tcp_keepintvl = 150 tcp_finwait2 = 1200 can anyone help? Editing Question: One point I missed because I was rushing to a meeting. the difference between the Production and UAT in setup is that in Production we have an application called F5 working as load balancer between the ATMs and the AIX box, while it is a direct connection through MPLS in case of UAT. note: we had one MPLS and one GPRS connected ATMs on UAT, and both connections terminated when unplugged in about 4 minutes Edit 2 the no -o tcp_timewait command returns 1 in both Production and UAT

    Read the article

  • How to restrict Apache Location directive to cetain sub-domain?

    - by ohho
    On our server www.example.com, we use the <Location> directive to proxy traffic to a back-end server: <Location /app1> ProxyPass http://192.168.1.20 </Location> Then we added a sub-domain uat.example.com which points to the same IP address of www.example.com. We want to use it as a proxy for client to test an app being developed. Hopefully, the client can access via: http:/uat.example.com/app2_uat Now if we add a Location: <Location /app2_uat> ProxyPass http://192.168.1.30 </Location> The client can access both: http:/www.example.com/app2_uat http:/uat.example.com/app2_uat How can I restrict Location such that only: http:/uat.example.com/app2_uat is accessible? (i.e. http:/www.example.com/app2_uat should not be accessible.)

    Read the article

  • Using Definition of Done to Drive Agile Maturity

    - by Dylan Smith
    I’ve been an Agile Coach at a lot of different clients over the years, and I want to share an approach I use to help them adopt and mature over time. It’s important to realize that “Agile” is not a black/white yes/no thing. Teams can be varying degrees of agile. I think of this as their agile maturity level. When I coach teams I want them to start out being a little agile, and get more agile as they mature. The approach I teach them is to use the definition of done as a technique to continuously improve their agile maturity over time. We’re probably all familiar with the concept of “Done Done” that represents what *actually* being done a feature means. Not just when a developer says he’s done right after he writes that last line of code that makes the feature kind-of work. Done Done means the coding is done, it’s been tested, installers and deployment packages have been created, user manuals have been updated, architecture docs have been updated, etc. To enable teams to internalize the concept of “Done Done”, they usually get together and come up with their Definition of Done (DoD) that defines all the activities that need to be completed before a feature is considered Done Done. The Done Done technique typically is applied only to features (aka User Stories). What I do is extend this to apply to several concepts such as User Stories, Sprints, Releases (and sometimes Check-Ins). During project kick-off I’ll usually sit down with the team and go through an exercise of creating DoD’s for each of these concepts (Stories/Sprints/Releases). We’ll usually start by just brainstorming a bunch of activities that could end up in these various DoD’s. Here’s some examples: Code Reviews StyleCop FxCop User Manuals Updated Architecture Docs Updated Tested by QA Tested by UAT Installers Created Support Knowledge Base Updated Deployment Instructions (for Ops) written Automated Unit Tests Run Automated Integration Tests Run Then we start by arranging these activities into the place they occur today (e.g. Do you do UAT testing only once per release? every sprint? every feature?). If the team was previously Waterfall most of these activities probably end up in the Release DoD. An extremely mature agile team would probably have most of these activities in the DoD for the User Stories (because an extremely mature agile team will probably do continuous deployment and release every story). So what we need to do as a team, is work to move these activities from their current home (Release DoD) down into the Sprint DoD and eventually into the User Story DoD (and maybe into the lower-level Check-In DoD if we decide to use that). We don’t have to move them all down to User Story immediately, but as a team we figure out what we think we’re capable of moving down to the Sprint cycle, and Story cycle immediately, and that becomes our starting DoD’s. Over time the team makes an effort to continue moving activities down from Release->Sprint->Story as they become more agile and more mature. I try to encourage them to envision a world in which they deploy to production as each User Story is completed. They would need to be updating User Manuals, creating installers, doing UAT testing (typical Release cycle activities) on every single User Story. They may never actually reach that point, but they should envision that, and strive to keep driving the activities down closer to the User Story cycle s they mature. This is a great technique to give a team an easy-to-follow roadmap to mature their agile practices over time. Sure there’s other aspects to maturity outside of this, but it’s a great technique, that’s easy to visualize, to drive agility into the team. Just keep moving those activities (aka “gates”) down the board from Release->Sprint->Story. I’ll try to give an example of what a recent client of mine had for their DoD’s (this is from memory, so probably not 100% accurate): Release Create/Update deployment Instructions For Ops Instructional Videos Updated Run manual regression test suite UAT Testing In this case that meant deploying to an environment shared across the enterprise that mirrored production and asking other business groups to test their own apps to ensure we didn’t break anything outside our system Sprint Deploy to UAT Environment But not necessarily actually request UAT testing occur User Guides updated Sprint Features Video Created In this case we decided to create a video each sprint showing off the progress (video version of Sprint Demo) User Story Manual Test scripts developed and run Tested by BA Deployed in shared QA environment Using automated deployment process Peer Code Review Code Check-In Compiled (warning-free) Passes StyleCop Passes FxCop Create installer packages Run Automated Tests Run Automated Integration Tests PS – One of my clients had a great question when we went through this activity. They said that if a Sprint is by definition done when the end-date rolls around (time-boxed), isn’t a DoD on a sprint meaningless – it’s done on the end-date regardless of whether those other activities are complete or not? My answer is that while that statement is true – the sprint is done regardless when the end date rolls around – if the DoD activities haven’t been completed I would consider the Sprint a failure (similar to not completing what was committed/planned – failure may be too strong a word but you get the idea). In the Retrospective that will become an agenda item to discuss and understand why we weren’t able to complete the activities we agreed would need to be completed each Sprint.

    Read the article

  • Automatic Deployment of Windows Application

    - by dileepkrishnan
    Hi, We have setup continuos integration in our development environment using SVN, CC.Net, MSBuild and Nunit. Now, we want to automate the process of moving (copying) builds from one stage to another like this: Whenever a new build succeeds in Dev, that should be copied automatically to the QA server (a folder on the QA server, to be exact) Whenever a QA build succeeds tests in QA, that QA build should be copied to the UAT server (a folder on the UAT server, to be exact). This should be implemented as a process (a CC task, for example) which we can start when QA succeeds. Whenever a UAT build succeeds tests in UAT, that should be copied to the PROD server (a folder on the PROD server, to be exact). This should be implemented as a process (a CC task, for example) which we can start when UAT succeeds. How do I implement this? Can this be done using CC.Net alone? Or, can this be done using MSBuild? Or, do I need to employ both? Please advise what exactly needs to be done. Thanks Dileep Krishnan

    Read the article

  • In which cases build artifacts will be different in different environments

    - by Sundeep
    We are working on automation of deployment using Jenkins. We have different environments - DEV, UAT, PROD. In SVN, we are tagging each release and placing same binaries in DEV, UAT, PROD. The artifacts already contains config files w.r.t each environment but I am not understanding why we are storing binaries in environment folder again. Are there any scenarios where deployment might be different for different environments.

    Read the article

  • Need advice or pointers on Release Management Strategies

    - by Murray
    I look after an internal web based (Java, JSP, Mediasurface, etc.) system that is in constant use (24/5). Users raise tickets for enhancements, bug fixes and other business changes. These issues are signed off individually and assigned to one of three or four developers. Once the issue is complete it is built and the code only committed to SVN. The changed files (templates, html, classes, jsp) are then copied to a dev server and committed to a different repository from where they are checked out to the UAT server for testing. (this often requires the Tomcat service to be restarted and occasionally the Mediasurface service as well). The users then test and either reject or approve the release. If approved the edited files are checked out to the Live server and the same process as with UAT undertaken. If rejected the developer makes the relevant changes and starts the release process again. This is all done manually without much control. Where different developers are working on similar files, changes sometimes get overwritten by builds done on out of sync code in other cases changes in UAT are moved to live in error as they are mixed up in files associated with a signed off release. I would like to move this to a more controlled and automated process where all source code and output files are held in SVN and releases to Dev, UAT and Live managed by a CI system (We have TeamCity in house for our .NET applications). My question is on how to manage the releases of multiple changes where some will be signed off and moved on and others rejected and returned to the developer. The changes may be on overlapping files and simply merging each release in to a Release Branch means that the rejected changes would have to be backed out of the branch. Is there a way to manage this using SVN and CI or will I simply have to live with the current system.

    Read the article

  • Surprising results with .NET multi-theading algorithm

    - by Myles J
    Hi, I've recently wrote a C# console time tabling algorithm that is based on a combination of a genetic algorithm with a few brute force routines thrown in. The initial results were promising but I figured I could improve the performance by splitting the brute force routines up to run in parallel on multi processor architectures. To do this I used the well documented Producer/Consumer model (as documented in this fantastic article http://www.albahari.com/threading/part2.aspx#_ProducerConsumerQWaitHandle). I changed my code to create one thread per logical processor during the brute force routines. The performance gains on my work station were very pleasing. I am running Windows XP on the following hardware: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU 2.33 GHz 3.49 GB RAM Initial tests indicated average performance gains of approx 40% when using 4 threads. The next step was to deploy the new multi-threading version of the algorithm to our higher spec UAT server. Here is the spec of our UAT server: Windows 2003 Server R2 Enterprise x64 8 cpu (Quad-Core) AMD Opteron 2.70 GHz 255 GB RAM After running the first round of tests we were all extremely surprised to find that the algorithm actually runs slower on the high spec W2003 server than on my local XP work station! In fact the tests seem to indicate that it doesn't matter how many threads are generated (tests were ran with the app spawning between 2 to 32 threads). The algorithm always runs significantly slower on the UAT W2003 server? How could this be? Surely the app should run faster on a 8 cpu (Quad-Core) than my 2 Quad work station? Why are we seeing no performance gains with the multi-threading on the W2003 server whilst the XP workstation tests show gains of up to 40%? Any help or pointers would be appreciated. Regards Myles

    Read the article

  • SQL Server database change workflow best practices

    - by kubi
    The Background My group has 4 SQL Server Databases: Production UAT Test Dev I work in the Dev environment. When the time comes to promote the objects I've been working on (tables, views, functions, stored procs) I make a request of my manager, who promotes to Test. After testing, she submits a request to an Admin who promotes to UAT. After successful user testing, the same Admin promotes to Production. The Problem The entire process is awkward for a few reasons. Each person must manually track their changes. If I update, add, remove any objects I need to track them so that my promotion request contains everything I've done. In theory, if I miss something testing or UAT should catch it, but this isn't certain and it's a waste of the tester's time, anyway. Lots of changes I make are iterative and done in a GUI, which means there's no record of what changes I made, only the end result (at least as far as I know). We're in the fairly early stages of building out a data mart, so the majority of the changes made, at least count-wise, are minor things: changing the data type for a column, altering the names of tables as we crystallize what they'll be used for, tweaking functions and stored procs, etc. The Question People have been doing this kind of work for decades, so I imagine there have got to be a much better way to manage the process. What I would love is if I could run a diff between two databases to see how the structure was different, use that diff to generate a change script, use that change script as my promotion request. Is this possible? If not, are there any other ways to organize this process? For the record, we're a 100% Microsoft shop, just now updating everything to SQL Server 2008, so any tools available in that package would be fair game.

    Read the article

  • Should we be able to deploy a single package to the SSIS Catalog?

    - by jamiet
    My buddy Sutha Thiru sent me an email recently asking about my opinion on a particular nuance of the project deployment model in SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) 2012 and I’d like to share my response as I think it warrants a wider discussion. Sutha asked: Jamie What is your take on this? http://www.mattmasson.com/index.php/2012/07/can-i-deploy-a-single-ssis-package-from-my-project-to-the-ssis-catalog/ Overnight I was talking to Matt who confirmed that they got no plans to change the deployment model. For example if we have following scenrio how do we do deploy? Sprint 1 Pkg1, 2 & 3 has been developed and deployed to UAT. Once signed off its been deployed to Live. Sprint 2 Pkg 4 & 5 been developed. During this time users raised a bug on Pkg2. We want to make the change to Pkg2 and deploy that to UAT and eventually to LIVE without releasing Pkg 4 &5. How do we do it? Matt pointed me to his blog entry which I have seen before . http://www.mattmasson.com/index.php/2012/02/thoughts-on-branching-strategies-for-ssis-projects/ Thanks Sutha My response: Personally, even though I've experienced the exact problem you just outlined, I agree with the current approach. I steadfastly believe that there should not be a way for an unscrupulous developer to slide in a new version of a package under the covers. Deploying .ispac files brings a degree of rigour to your operational processes. Yes, that means that we as SSIS developers are going to have to get better at using source control and branching properly but that is no bad thing in my opinion. Claiming to be proper "developers" is a bit of a cheap claim if we don't even do the fundamentals correctly. I would be interested in the thoughts of others who have used the project deployment model. Do you agree with my point of view? @Jamiet

    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

  • design in agile process

    - by ying
    Recently I had an interview with dev team in a company. The team uses agile + TDD. The code exercise implements a video rental store which generates statement to calc total rental fee for each type of video (new release, children, etc) for a customer. The existing code use object like: Statement to generate statement and calc fee where big switch statement sits to use enum to determine how to calc rental fee customer holds a list of rentals movie base class and derived class for each type of movie (NEW, CHILDREN, ACTION, etc) The code originally doesn't compile as the owner was assumed to be hit by a bus. So here is what I did: outlined the improvement over object model to have better responsibility for each class. use strategy pattern to replace switch statement and weave them in config But the team says it's waste of time because there is no requirement for it and UAT test suite works and is the only guideline goes into architecture decision. The underlying story is just to get pricing feature out and not saying anything about how to do it. So the discussion is focused on why should time be spent on refactor the switch statement. In my understanding, agile methodology doesn't mean zero design upfront and such code smell should be avoided at the beginning. Also any unit/UAT test suite won't detect such code smell, otherwise sonar, findbugs won't exist. Here I want to ask: is there such a thing called agile design in the agile methodology? Just like agile documentation. how to define agile design upfront? how to know enough is enough? In my understanding, ballpark architecture and data contract among components should be defined before/when starting project, not the details. Am I right? anyone can explain what the team is really looking for in this kind of setup? is it design aspect or agile aspect? how to implement minimum viable product concept in the agile process in the real world project? Is it must that you feel embarrassed to be MVP?

    Read the article

  • Why is a software development life-cycle so inefficient?

    - by user87166
    Currently the software development lifecycle followed in the IT company I work at is: The "Business" works with a solution manager to build a Business Requirement document The solution manager works with the Program manager to build a Functional Spec The PM works with the engineering lead to develop a release plan and with the engineering team to develop technical specifications If there are any clarifications required, developers contact the PM who contacts the solution manager who contacts the business and all the way back introducing a latency of nearly 24 hours and massive email chains for any clarifications By the time the tech spec is made, nearly 1 month has passed in back and forth Now, 2 weeks go to development while the test writes test cases Code is dropped formally to test, test starts raising bugs. Even if there is 1 root cause for 10 different issues, and its an easily fixed one, developers are not allowed to give fresh code to test for the next 1 week. After 2-3 such drops to test the code is given to the ops team as a "golden drop" ( 2 months passed from the beginning) Ops team will now deploy the code in a staging environment. If it runs stable for a week, it will be promoted to UAT and after 2 weeks of that it will be promoted to prod. If there are any bugs found here, well, applying for a visa requires less paperwork This entire process is followed even if a single SSRS report is to be released. How do other companies process such requirements? I'm wondering why, the business cannot just drop the requirements to developers, developers build and deploy to UAT themselves, expose it to the business who raise functional bugs and after fixing those promote to prod. (even for more complex stuff)

    Read the article

  • Keep it Professional &ndash; Multiple Environments

    - by AjarnMark
    I have certainly been reading blogs a whole lot more than writing them the last several weeks, and it’s about time I got back to writing.  I have been collecting several topics and references for blog posts…some of which will probably just never get written as the timeliness of the topics fade over time.  Nonetheless, I’m back, and I think it is time to revive my Doing Business Right series, this time coming from the slant of managing a development team rather than the previous angle of being self-employed.  First up: separating Dev, Test, and Prod. A few months ago, Colin Stasiuk (@BenchmarkIT) wrote a great post about separating your Dev, Test/UAT, and Prod environments.  This post covers all the important points such as removing Developer access from both PROD and UAT, and the importance of proper deployment (a.k.a. promotion) procedures.  I won’t repeat it all here, go read the original!  But what I do want to address is what I believe to be the #1 excuse people use for not having separate environments:  Money.  I discussed this briefly in my comment on Colin’s post at the time, but let me repeat it here and expand on it a bit. Don’t let the size of your company or the size of its budget dictate whether you do things professionally or not.  I am convinced that most developers and development teams would agree that it is a best practice to have separate environments for development, testing, and production (a.k.a. Live).  So why don’t they?  Because they think that it means separate servers which means more money.  While having separate physical servers for the different environments would be ideal, it is not an absolute requirement in order to make this work.  Here are a few ideas: Use multiple instances of SQL Server and multiple Web Sites with Headers or Ports.  For no additional fees* you can install multiple instances of SQL Server on the same machine.  This gives you a nice separation, allowing you to even use the same database names as will appear in PROD, yet isolating the data and security access.  And in IIS, you can create multiple Web Sites on the same server just by using Host Headers or different port numbers to separate them.  This approach does still pose the risk of non-Prod environments impacting performance on Prod, but when your application is busy enough for that to be a concern, you can probably afford one of the other options. Use desktop PCs instead of servers.  Instead of investing in full server-grade hardware, you can mimic the separate environments on old desktop PCs and at least get functional equivalency, if not performance matching.  The last I checked, Microsoft did not require separate licensing for SQL Server if that installation was used exclusively for dev or test purposes*.  There may be some version or performance differences between this approach and what you have in Prod, but you have isolated test from impacting Prod resources this way. Virtualization.  This is of course one of the hot topics of the day, and I would be remiss if I did not suggest this.  It is quite easy these days to setup virtual machines so that, again, your environments are fairly isolated from one another, and you retain all the security and procedural benefits of having separate environments. So the point is, keep your high professional standards intact.  You don’t need to compromise on using proper procedure just because you work in a small company with a small budget.  Keep doing things the right way! By the way, where I work, our DEV environment is not on a server.  All development is done on the developer’s individual workstation where it can be isolated from other developers’ work for the duration of writing the code, but also where the developers have to reconcile (merge) differences in code under concurrent development.  This usually means that each change is executed multiple times (once per developer to update their environments with the latest changes from others) giving us an extra, informal. test deployment before even going to the Test/UAT server.  It also means that if the network goes down, the developers can continue to hum along because they are not dependent on networked resources.  In fact, they will likely be even more productive because they aren’t being interrupted by email…but that’s another post I need to write. * I am not a lawyer, nor a licensing specialist, but it appeared to be so the last time I checked.  When in doubt, consult an expert on the topic.

    Read the article

  • Issue with python string join.

    - by Pradyot
    I have some code in which I apply a join to a list. The list before the join looks like this: ["'DealerwebAgcy_NYK_GW_UAT'", "'DealerwebAgcy'", "'UAT'", '@ECNPhysicalMarketCo nfigId', "'GATEWAY'", "'DEALERWEB_MD_AGCY'", "'NU1MKVETC'", "'mkvetcu'", "'C:\te mp'", '0', "'NYK'", '0', '1', "'isqlw.exe'", 'GetDate()', '12345', "'NYK'", '350 ', '7'] After the join this is the resulting string 'DealerwebAgcy_NYK_GW_UAT','DealerwebAgcy','UAT',@ECNPhysicalMarketConfigId,'GAT EWAY','DEALERWEB_MD_AGCY','NU1MKVETC','mkvetcu','C: emp',0,'NYK',0,1,'isqlw. exe',GetDate(),12345,'NYK',350,7 Note the element "'C:\temp'" which ends up as ,'C: emp', I tried something similar on the python command prompt , but I wasn't able to 2 repeat this. the relevant code responsible for this magic is as follows. values_dict["ECNMarketInstance"] = [strVal(self.EcnInstance_),strVal (self.DisplayName_) ,strVal(self.environment_), '@ECNPhysicalMarketConfigId', strVal(self.EcnGatewaTypeId_),strVal(self.ConnectionComponent_) ,strVal(self.UserName_),strVal(self.Password_),strVal(self.WorkingDir_),"0",strVal(self.region_),"0","1", strVal(self.LUVersion_), "GetDate()" , self.LUUserId_ ,strVal(self.LUOwningSite_),self.QuoteColumnId_ , self.Capabilities_] delim = "," joined = delim.join(values) print values print joined

    Read the article

  • how to join a set of XElements to the values of a struct?

    - by jcollum
    Let's say I have a struct that contains local environments: public struct Environments { public const string Dev = "DEV"; public const string Qa1 = "SQA"; public const string Prod1 = "PROD"; public const string Prod2 = "PROD_SA"; public const string Uat = "UAT"; } And I'd like to pull a set of XElements out of an xml doc, but only those elements that have a key that matches a value in a struct. this.environments =(from e in settings.Element("Settings").Element("Environments") .Elements("Environment") .Where( x => x.HasAttribute("name") ) join f in [struct?] on e.Attribute("name") equals [struct value?]).ToDictionary(...) How would I go about doing this? Do I need reflection to get the values of the constants in the struct?

    Read the article

  • Bash arrays and case statements - review my script

    - by Felipe Alvarez
    #!/bin/bash # Change the environment in which you are currently working. # Actually, it calls the relevant 'lettus.sh' script if [ "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" == "$0" ]; then echo "Try running this as \". chenv $1\"" exit 0 fi usage(){ echo "Usage: . ${PROG} -- Shows a list of user-selectable environments." echo " . ${PROG} [env] -- Select environment." echo " . ${PROG} -h -- Shows this usage screen." return } showEnv(){ # check if index0 exists, assume we have at least the first (zeroth) element #if [ -z "${envList}" ]; then if [ -z "${envList[0]}" ]; then echo "array \$envList is empty! " >&2 return 1 fi # Show all elements in array (0 -> n-1) for i in $(seq 0 $((${#envList[@]} - 1))); do echo ${envList[$i]} done return } setEnv(){ if [ -z "$1" ]; then usage; return fi case $1 in cold) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_cold.sh;; coles) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_coles.sh;; fc) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_fc.sh;; fcrm) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_fcrm.sh;; stable) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_stable.sh;; tip) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_tip.sh;; uat) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_uat.sh;; wellmdc) FILE_TO_SOURCE=/u2/tip/conf/ctrl/lettus_wellmdc.sh;; *) usage; return;; esac if $IS_SOURCED; then echo "Environment \"$1\" selected." echo "Now sourcing file \"$FILE_TO_SOURCE\"..." . ${FILE_TO_SOURCE} return else return 1 fi } main(){ if [ -z "$1" ]; then showEnv; return fi case $1 in -h) usage;; *) setEnv $1;; esac return } PROG="chenv" # create array of user-selectable environments envList=( cold coles fc fcrm stable tip uat wellmdc ) main "$@" return If I could, I'd like to get some feedback on a better way to accomplish any of the following: run through the case statement make script trivally simple to maintain/upgrade/update

    Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >