Download to read offline
![@alexsotob8
Villains Database Application
Consumer Producer
GET /crimes/Gru
[{
"name": "Moon",
"villain": "Gru",
"wiki": "/wiki/Moon"
}]
GET /villains/Gru
"name": “Gru”,
"areaOfInfluence": "World"
"crimes": [{
"name": "Moon",
"wiki": "/wiki/Moon"
}]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/deploywithconfidence-171109220917/75/Deploy-With-Confidence-8-2048.jpg)
![@alexsotob21
Consumer Side
Stub Server
Consumer
Test
Expectations
GET /crimes/Gru
[{"name":...]}
Sharing](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/deploywithconfidence-171109220917/75/Deploy-With-Confidence-21-2048.jpg)
![Provider Side
Sharing
Test
Provider
GET /crimes/Gru
[{"name":...]}](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/deploywithconfidence-171109220917/75/Deploy-With-Confidence-22-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byAlex Soto
Deploy With Confidence
The document discusses the deployment of microservices and testing strategies, emphasizing the importance of consumer-driven contracts for improving reliability and communication. It contrasts various testing methods, such as unit tests, integration tests, and contract tests, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The author advocates for automation and a structured deployment process to enable confident and manageable releases in production environments.
In this document
Powered by AI
Introduction to deploying microservices confidently. Includes speaker info and a link to a relevant book.
Explains a Villains Database Application using microservices, exploring GET requests for crimes and villain information.
Discusses the journey to production deployment and the potential failures that can occur in a production environment.
Overview of various testing types: Unit Tests, Integration Tests, Manual Tests, and Contract Tests, highlighting advantages and disadvantages.
Emphasizes the importance of contract tests, different ownership models, and consumer expectations in microservices.
Introduces frameworks for contract testing like Pact, noting its integration with multiple languages and its capabilities.
Details deployment procedures for both consumers and providers, ensuring contract compatibility through CI stages.
Advocates for automation in testing processes to improve efficiency and allow for better work-life balance.
Summarizes key points of testing strategies, emphasizing the advantages of consumer-driven contracts and end-to-end tests.
More Related Content
![[AWS Techshift] 파트너 사업을 준비하기 위해 기억해야 할 5가지 - 양승호, AWS 파트너 사업 개발 담당 이사](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/awstechshiftyangseungho-191022063855-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Deploy With Confidence
- 1. Deploy Microservices withConfidence @alexsotob
- 2. @alexsotob2 Alex Soto Red HatEngineer www.lordofthejars.com @alexsotob Who Am I?
- 3.
- 4.
- 5. @alexsotob5 Any resemblance toreality is pure coincidence
- 6. @alexsotob @AndyGeeDe6 Micro Servicesarchitecture
- 7. @alexsotob7 Villains Database Application VillainsCrimes Give Me Crimes of GruGive Me Information of Gru
- 8. @alexsotob8 Villains Database Application ConsumerProducer GET /crimes/Gru [{ "name": "Moon", "villain": "Gru", "wiki": "/wiki/Moon" }] GET /villains/Gru "name": “Gru”, "areaOfInfluence": "World" "crimes": [{ "name": "Moon", "wiki": "/wiki/Moon" }]
- 9. @alexsotob @AndyGeeDe9 Let’s Goto Production
- 10.
- 11. @alexsotob @AndyGeeDe11 Shit! Webreak Production Environment
- 12.
- 13.
- 14. @alexsotob Advantages Disadvantages Unit Tests(and Mocks) 14 Cheap No setup of environment Fast Mocks Reliable All local, no flaky Not Trustworthy How you understand the system Targeted You know where it failed
- 15.
- 16. @alexsotob Advantages Disadvantages Integration Tests 16 Trustworthy Theyare real Not Reliable May fail for any external reason Slow Boot service and dependencies Become e2e You easily end up with e2e tests
- 17.
- 18.
- 19. @alexsotob19 Ownership of theContracts
- 20. @alexsotob > Provider Contracts providercentric, consumers adapts all or nothing > Consumer Contracts individual consumer’s needs > Consumer-driven Contracts representation of a provider's obligations to all its consumers Ownership Different Approaches 20
- 21. @alexsotob21 Consumer Side Stub Server Consumer Test Expectations GET/crimes/Gru [{"name":...]} Sharing
- 22.
- 23. @alexsotob23 Contract Tests TestingFrameworks Consumer Driven Contracts
- 24. @alexsotob24 > Pact Foundation Pactspecification v3 > Integration with several languages JVM, Ruby, Python, Go, .Net, Swift, JS > Pact Broker Sharing contracts, API documentation, Overview of services > Arquillian Algeron Arquillian ecosystem + Pact, Publishers/Retrievers, JBoss Forge
- 25.
- 26.
- 27. @alexsotob > Execute Build Publishcontracts as artefact version > Run Head Provider Contract Tests Check contract compatibility against version contract > Run Prod Provider Contract Tests Check contract compatibility against version contract > Release Consumer Tag contract with environment name Deploying Consumer Steps on CI (Commit Stage) 27
- 28. @alexsotob > Execute Build Runas usual > Run Provider Contract Tests Check contract compatibility against latest contract > Run Prod Provider Contract Tests Check contract compatibility against environment contract > Release Provider Deploying Provider Steps on CI (Commit Stage) 28
- 29.
- 30.
- 31. @alexsotob Conclusions 31 > End ToEnd Tests Late feedback Expensive change Difficult to orchestrate > Consumer Driven Contracts Fail fast Independent deployments Improve communication
- 32.