An Empirical Analysis of Microservices Systems Using Consumer-Driven Contract Testing
0 likes26 views
This document presents an empirical analysis of microservices systems through consumer-driven contract testing, focusing on the architecture, testing strategies, and challenges in real-world implementations. The research examines the testing architecture of open-source microservices systems, utilizing various testing types and exploring alignment with best practices. Findings indicate deviations from established testing guidelines, highlighting a need for improved service-level testing and adaptations of existing testing paradigms.
An Empirical Analysis of Microservices Systems Using Consumer-Driven Contract Testing
- 1. An Empirical Analysis of Microservices Systems Using Consumer-Driven Contract Testing Hamdy Michael Ayas | Hartmut Fischer | Philipp Leitner | Francisco Gomes de Oliveira Neto Department of Computer Science | Interaction Design & Software Engineering 01/09/2022
- 2. 2022-08-29 What? à Microservices-Based Architecture 2
- 3. 2022-08-29 What? à Microservices-Based Architecture 3 Structuring systems into: - loosely coupled pieces - developed and operated independently - own individual domains and resources - communicate to compose a complete system
- 4. 2022-08-29 What? à Microservices-Based Architecture 4 Structuring systems into: - loosely coupled pieces - developed and operated independently - own individual domains and resources - communicate to compose a complete system
- 5. 2022-08-29 What? à Microservices-Based Architecture 5 Structuring systems into: - loosely coupled pieces - developed and operated independently - own individual domains and resources - communicate to compose a complete system
- 6. 2022-08-29 What? à Microservices-Based Architecture 6 Structuring systems into: - loosely coupled pieces - developed and operated independently - own individual domains and resources - communicate to compose a complete system
- 7. 2022-08-29 Why? à Microservices based architectures 7 - Focus on one thing and do it well - Design with multiple points of failure - Conwell’s law and org. alignment - Faster releases of functionality - Independent scaling - Technological diversity - Separation of security-critical parts
- 8. 2022-08-29 How? à Individual development 8 Microservice 1 Microservice 2 Microservice 3 … Develop Test Monitor … Develop Test Monitor … Develop Test Monitor … Develop Test Monitor … Develop Test Monitor … Develop Test Monitor … time
- 9. 2022-08-29 How? à Consumer-Driven Contracts 9 Producer Service Consumer Service Contract Contract
- 14. 2022-08-29 Granularity of Services 15 Different structures of services call for different testing structures Unit Testing Component Testing Integration Testing E2E Testing
- 15. 2022-08-29 Challenges & Gaps 17 New testing paradigms with MSAs How best practices appear in real-world implementations How testing types come together
- 16. 2022-08-29 Research objectives 18 Devise testing architecture of MSAs Examine appearance of best practices Investigate testing strategies in MSAs
- 17. 2022-08-29 Research Questions RQ1: What is the testing architecture of open-source systems that use MSA and CDC tests? RQ1.1: What artifacts are used and how do they relate to each other? RQ1.2: What tools and frameworks implement MSA? RQ2: Do current implementations of open-source MSAs follow specific guidelines on MSA testing practices? 19
- 21. 2022-08-29 Methodology ID Description Framework # of microservices P1 IoT application for an intelligent football table Pact 2 P2 Public service platform for online payments Pact 6 P3 Governmental platform for licensing exports & imports Pact 7 P4 MS reference implementation of food delivery service SCC 7 23 22 microservices
- 23. 2022-08-29 Unit Tests • Scope of one microservice • Dependent classes replaced with test double 25
- 24. 2022-08-29 Integration Tests • Testing the interactions of an individual microservice with external modules • Containerization is used to test different transactions • Not visible in all microservices 26
- 25. 2022-08-29 Component Test • The functionality of a single microservice is tested • Test by calling different endpoints 27
- 26. 2022-08-29 System Test • Mocked actions on UI • User Journey simulations 28
- 27. 2022-08-29 RQ1: Testing Architecture The testing architecture of the analysed projects cover all levels of testing (unit, integration, component and system-level). Mocking is used in all levels. Most projects used component tests as integration tests, even though they did not target the interaction between microservices. 29
- 28. 2022-08-29 RQ2: Alignment with Guidelines and Best Practices Comparison with test pyramid unit test component test integration test* (contract test) system test flaky reliable slow, expensive fast, cheap number of tests i s o l a t e d i n t e g r a t e d *isolation depending on implementation 30
- 29. 2022-08-29 RQ2: Alignment with Guidelines and Best Practices 31
- 30. 2022-08-29 RQ2: Alignment with Guidelines and Best Practices 32
- 31. 2022-08-29 RQ2: Alignment with Guidelines and Best Practices 33
- 32. 2022-08-29 RQ2: Alignment with Guidelines and Best Practices unit test component test integration test* (contract test) system test flaky reliable slow, expensive fast, cheap number of tests i s o l a t e d i n t e g r a t e d *isolation depending on implementation Open-source microservices systems deviate from the test pyramid and the proportions suggested in Best Practice. Even though some services align with the test pyramid, the general picture is that the distinction between integration and component tests is not so clear. 34
- 33. 2022-08-29 Implications & Contribution Call to investigate further service-level testing Adaptation of test pyramid for systems using MSA End-to-End testing architecture 35