Search Results

Search found 13200 results on 528 pages for 'wcf testing'.

Page 6/528 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• Database unit testing is now available for SSDT

  - by jamiet

  Good news was announced yesterday for those that are using SSDT and want to write unit tests, unit testing functionality is now available. The announcement was made on the SSDT team blog in post Available Today: SSDT—December 2012. Here are a few thoughts about this news. Firstly, there seems to be a general impression that database unit testing was not previously available for SSDT – that’s not entirely true. Database unit testing was most recently delivered in Visual Studio 2010 and any database unit tests written therein work perfectly well against SQL Server databases created using SSDT (why wouldn’t they – its just a database after all). In other words, if you’re running SSDT inside Visual Studio 2010 then you could carry on freely writing database unit tests; some of the tight integration between the two (e.g. right-click on an object in SQL Server Object Explorer and choose to create a unit test) was not there – but I’ve never found that to be a problem. I am currently working on a project that uses SSDT for database development and have been happily running VS2010 database unit tests for a few months now. All that being said, delivery of database unit testing for SSDT is now with us and that is good news, not least because we now have the ability to create unit tests in VS2012. We also get tight integration with SSDT itself, the like of which I mentioned above. Having now had a look at the new features I was delighted to find that one of my big complaints about database unit testing has been solved. As I reported here on Connect a refactor operation would cause unit test code to get completely mangled. See here the before and after from such an operation: SELECT    * FROM    bi.ProcessMessageLog pml INNER JOIN bi.[LogMessageType] lmt     ON    pml.[LogMessageTypeId] = lmt.[LogMessageTypeId] WHERE    pml.[LogMessage] = 'Ski[LogMessageTypeName]of message: IApplicationCanceled' AND        lmt.[LogMessageType] = 'Warning'; which is obviously not ideal. Thankfully that seems to have been solved with this latest release. One disappointment about this new release is that the process for running tests as part of a CI build has not changed from the horrendously complicated process required previously. Check out my blog post Setting up database unit testing as part of a Continuous Integration build process [VS2010 DB Tools - Datadude] for instructions on how to do it. In that blog post I describe it as “fiddly” – I was being kind when I said that! @Jamiet

  Read the article

• Mock Objects for Testing - Test Automation Engineer Perspective

  - by user9009

  Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks Edit : Based on the answers below am providing more details about what QA i was referring to . I'm interested in more of Test Automation rather than simple QA involved in record and play of script. So Test Automation engineers are responsible for developing frameworks ? or do they have a team of developers dedicated in Framework development ? Yes i was asking about usage of Mock Objects for testing from Test Automation engineer perspective.

  Read the article

• CppUnit for unit-testing executable files?

  - by hagubear

  I am not sure if anyone has done it. I am trying to do something that is in general, uncommon i.e. unit-testing executable (Windows) or ELFs (Linux). I know that CppUnit provides a good unit testing facility, but I have never used it for unit-testing (used UnitTest++). I hear rumours that you can unit-test executables too. Does anyone have the experience in this? A relevant post regarding the philosophy of it was here

  Read the article

• Scenario to illustrate how unit testing leads to better design

  - by Cocowalla

  For an internal training session, I'm trying to come up with a simple scenario that illustrates how unit testing leads to better design, by forcing you to think about things like coupling before you start coding. The idea is that I get the participants to code something first, without considering unit testing, then we do it again, but considering unit testing. Hopefully the code produced second time round should be more decoupled and maintainable. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that can be coded quickly, yet can still demonstrate how unit testing can lead to better overall design.

  Read the article

• Code testing practice

  - by Robin Castlin

  So now I have come to the conclusion like many others that having some way of constantly testing your code is good practice since it enables fewer people to be involved (colleges and customers alike) by simply knowing what's wrong before someone else finds out the hard way. I've heard and read some about Unit Testing and understand what it's supposed to do and all. The there are so many different types of bugs. It can be everything from web browser not being able not being able to send correct values, javascript failing, a global function messing up a piece of code somewhere to a change that looked good when testing it out but fails in some special case which was hard to anticipate. My simply finding these errors I learn to rarely repeat them again, but there seems to always be new bugs to be found and learnt from. I would guess maybe the best practice would be to run every page and it's functions a couple of times, witness the result and repeat this in Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer (and all smartphones apparently) to make sure it works as intended. However this would take quite some time to do consider I don't work with patches/versions and do little fixes here and there a couple of times per week. What I prefer would be some kind of page I can just load that tests as much things as possible to make sure the site works as intended. Basicly just run a lot of cURL's with POST-values and see if I get expected result. But how would I preferably not increase the IDs of every mysql rows if I delete these testing rows? It feels silly to be on ID 1000 with maybe 50 rows in total. If I could build a new project from scratch I would probably implement some kind of smooth way to return a "TRUE" on testing instead of the actual page. But this solution would for the moment being have to be passed on existing projects. My question What would you recommend to be the best way to test my site to make sure that existing functions does their job upon editing the code? Should I consider to implement a lot of edits first, then test manually the entire code to make sure it still works? Is there any nice way of testing codes without "hurting" the ID columns? Extra thoughs Would it be a good idea to associate all of my files to the different parts of my site which they affect? For instance if I edit home.php I will through documentation test if my homepage's start works as intended since it's the only part of my site it should affect.

  Read the article

• What is the aim of software testing?

  - by user970696

  Having read many books, there is a basic contradiction: Some say, "the goal of testing is to find bugs" while other say "the goal of the testing is to equalize the quality of the product", meaning that bugs are its by-products. I would also agree that if testing would be aimed primarily on a bug hunt, who would do the actual verification and actually provided the information, that the software is ready? Even e.g. Kaner changed his original definiton of testing goal from bug hunting to quality assesement provision but I still cannot see the clear difference. I percieve both as equally important. I can verify software by its specification to make sure it works and in that case, bugs found are just by products. But also I perform tests just to brake things. Also what definition is more accurate?

  Read the article

• Browser connects to WCF service but not my WCF client. What can be the reason?

  - by Slauma

  On a production server (Windows Server 2003 SP2) I can connect to a remote WCF service with Internet Explorer 8: When I browse to the URL http://www.domain.com/Service.svc (where my service listens) I get the expected info page of the service displayed. Connection settings in Internet Explorer only specify "auto detect", proxy settings are disabled. If I start a console application (built with WCF in .NET 4.0) on the same server which also tries to connect to the same WCF service it fails telling me that no endpoint was available listening on http://www.domain.com/Service.svc. Configuration of the WCF client: <configuration> <system.serviceModel> <bindings> <wsHttpBinding> <binding name="WSHttpBinding_IMyService" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" transactionFlow="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" useDefaultWebProxy="true" allowCookies="false"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <reliableSession ordered="true" inactivityTimeout="00:10:00" enabled="false" /> <security mode="None"> <transport clientCredentialType="Windows" proxyCredentialType="None" realm="" /> <message clientCredentialType="Windows" negotiateServiceCredential="true"/> </security> </binding> </wsHttpBinding> </bindings> <client> <endpoint address="http://www.domain.com/Service.scv" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="WSHttpBinding_IMyService" contract="Service.IMyService" name="WSHttpBinding_IMyService" /> </client> </system.serviceModel> <configuration> With these settings I can communicate successfully with the remote service from my development machine. Looking around for other options I found that I can specify to use the Internet Explorer proxy settings with: <system.net> <defaultProxy> <proxy usesystemdefault="true" /> </defaultProxy> </system.net> It didn't work and I am not sure if I understood this setting really correctly. (My hope was that the WCF client will adopt the "autodetect" setting of Internet Explorer and then connect the same way to the service like the installed IE.) I also had toggled the useDefaultWebProxy setting in the binding configuration between true and false with no success. Now I am asking for help what I can do? Which settings might be wrong or missing? What could I test and how can I get more detailed error messages to better identify the problem? Thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• Integrating WIF with WCF Data Services

  - by cibrax

  A time ago I discussed how a custom REST Starter kit interceptor could be used to parse a SAML token in the Http Authorization header and wrap that into a ClaimsPrincipal that the WCF services could use. The thing is that code was initially created for Geneva framework, so it got deprecated quickly. I recently needed that piece of code for one of projects where I am currently working on so I decided to update it for WIF. As this interceptor can be injected in any host for WCF REST services, also represents an excellent solution for integrating claim-based security into WCF Data Services (previously known as ADO.NET Data Services). The interceptor basically expects a SAML token in the Authorization header. If a token is found, it is parsed and a new ClaimsPrincipal is initialized and injected in the WCF authorization context. public class SamlAuthenticationInterceptor : RequestInterceptor {   SecurityTokenHandlerCollection handlers;   public SamlAuthenticationInterceptor()     : base(false)   {     this.handlers = FederatedAuthentication.ServiceConfiguration.SecurityTokenHandlers;   }   public override void ProcessRequest(ref RequestContext requestContext)   {     SecurityToken token = ExtractCredentials(requestContext.RequestMessage);     if (token != null)     {       ClaimsIdentityCollection claims = handlers.ValidateToken(token);       var principal = new ClaimsPrincipal(claims);       InitializeSecurityContext(requestContext.RequestMessage, principal);     }     else     {       DenyAccess(ref requestContext);     }   }   private void DenyAccess(ref RequestContext requestContext)   {     Message reply = Message.CreateMessage(MessageVersion.None, null);     HttpResponseMessageProperty responseProperty = new HttpResponseMessageProperty() { StatusCode = HttpStatusCode.Unauthorized };     responseProperty.Headers.Add("WWW-Authenticate",           String.Format("Basic realm=\"{0}\"", ""));     reply.Properties[HttpResponseMessageProperty.Name] = responseProperty;     requestContext.Reply(reply);     requestContext = null;   }   private SecurityToken ExtractCredentials(Message requestMessage)   {     HttpRequestMessageProperty request = (HttpRequestMessageProperty)  requestMessage.Properties[HttpRequestMessageProperty.Name];     string authHeader = request.Headers["Authorization"];     if (authHeader != null && authHeader.Contains("<saml"))     {       XmlTextReader xmlReader = new XmlTextReader(new StringReader(authHeader));       var col = SecurityTokenHandlerCollection.CreateDefaultSecurityTokenHandlerCollection();       SecurityToken token = col.ReadToken(xmlReader);                                        return token;     }     return null;   }   private void InitializeSecurityContext(Message request, IPrincipal principal)   {     List<IAuthorizationPolicy> policies = new List<IAuthorizationPolicy>();     policies.Add(new PrincipalAuthorizationPolicy(principal));     ServiceSecurityContext securityContext = new ServiceSecurityContext(policies.AsReadOnly());     if (request.Properties.Security != null)     {       request.Properties.Security.ServiceSecurityContext = securityContext;     }     else     {       request.Properties.Security = new SecurityMessageProperty() { ServiceSecurityContext = securityContext };      }    }    class PrincipalAuthorizationPolicy : IAuthorizationPolicy    {      string id = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();      IPrincipal user;      public PrincipalAuthorizationPolicy(IPrincipal user)      {        this.user = user;      }      public ClaimSet Issuer      {        get { return ClaimSet.System; }      }      public string Id      {        get { return this.id; }      }      public bool Evaluate(EvaluationContext evaluationContext, ref object state)      {        evaluationContext.AddClaimSet(this, new DefaultClaimSet(System.IdentityModel.Claims.Claim.CreateNameClaim(user.Identity.Name)));        evaluationContext.Properties["Identities"] = new List<IIdentity>(new IIdentity[] { user.Identity });        evaluationContext.Properties["Principal"] = user;        return true;      }    } A WCF Data Service, as any other WCF Service, contains a service host where this interceptor can be injected. The following code illustrates how that can be done in the “svc” file. <%@ ServiceHost Language="C#" Debug="true" Service="ContactsDataService"                 Factory="AppServiceHostFactory" %> using System; using System.ServiceModel; using System.ServiceModel.Activation; using Microsoft.ServiceModel.Web; class AppServiceHostFactory : ServiceHostFactory {    protected override ServiceHost CreateServiceHost(Type serviceType, Uri[] baseAddresses)   {     WebServiceHost2 result = new WebServiceHost2(serviceType, true, baseAddresses);     result.Interceptors.Add(new SamlAuthenticationInterceptor());                 return result;   } } WCF Data Services includes an specific WCF host of out the box (DataServiceHost). However, the service is not affected at all if you replace it with a custom one as I am doing in the code above (WebServiceHost2 is part of the REST Starter kit). Finally, the client application needs to pass the SAML token somehow to the data service. In case you are using any Http client library for consuming the data service, that’s easy to do, you only need to include the SAML token as part of the “Authorization” header. If you are using the auto-generated data service proxy, a little piece of code is needed to inject a SAML token into the DataServiceContext instance. That class provides an event “SendingRequest” that any client application can leverage to include custom code that modified the Http request before it is sent to the service. So, you can easily create an extension method for the DataServiceContext that negotiates the SAML token with an existing STS, and adds that token as part of the “Authorization” header. public static class DataServiceContextExtensions {        public static void ConfigureFederatedCredentials(this DataServiceContext context, string baseStsAddress, string realm)   {     string address = string.Format(STSAddressFormat, baseStsAddress, realm);                  string token = NegotiateSecurityToken(address);     context.SendingRequest += (source, args) =>     {       args.RequestHeaders.Add("Authorization", token);     };   } private string NegotiateSecurityToken(string address) { } } I left the NegociateSecurityToken method empty for this extension as it depends pretty much on how you are negotiating tokens from an existing STS. In case you want to end-to-end REST solution that involves an Http endpoint for the STS, you should definitely take a look at the Thinktecture starter STS project in codeplex.

  Read the article

• How do I manage the technical debate over WCF vs. Web API?

  - by Saeed Neamati

  I'm managing a team of like 15 developers now, and we are stuck at a point on choosing the technology, where the team is broken into two completely opposite teams, debating over usage of WCF vs. Web API. Team A which supports usage of Web API, brings forward these reasons: Web API is just the modern way of writing services (Wikipedia) WCF is an overhead for HTTP. It's a solution for TCP, and Net Pipes, and other protocols WCF models are not POCO, because of [DataContract] & [DataMember] and those attributes SOAP is not as readable and handy as JSON SOAP is an overhead for network compared to JSON (transport over HTTP) No method overloading Team B which supports the usage of WCF, says: WCF supports multiple protocols (via configuration) WCF supports distributed transactions Many good examples and success stories exist for WCF (while Web API is still young) Duplex is excellent for two-way communication This debate is continuing, and I don't know what to do now. Personally, I think that we should use a tool only for its right place of usage. In other words, we'd better use Web API, if we want to expose a service over HTTP, but use WCF when it comes to TCP and Duplex. By searching the Internet, we can't get to a solid result. Many posts exist for supporting WCF, but on the contrary we also find people complaint about it. I know that the nature of this question might sound arguable, but we need some good hints to decide. We're stuck at a point where choosing a technology by chance might make us regret it later. We want to choose with open eyes. Our usage would be mostly for web, and we would expose our services over HTTP. In some cases (say 5 to 10 percent) we might need distributed transactions though. What should I do now? How do I manage this debate in a constructive way?

  Read the article

• WCF Versioning, Naming and Endpoint URL

  - by Vinothkumar VJ

  I have a WCF Service and a Main Lib1. Say, I have a Save Profile Service. WCF gets data (with predefined data contract) from client and pass the same to the Main Class Lib1, generate response and send it back to client. WCF Method : SaveProfile(ProfileDTO profile) Current Version 1.0 ProfileDTO have the following UserName Password FirstName DOB (In string yyyy-mm-dd) CreatedDate (In string yyyy-mm-dd) Next Version (V2.0) ProfileDTO have the following UserName Password FirstName DOB (In UnixTimeStamp) CreatedDate (In UnixTimeStamp) Version 3.0 ProfileDTO have the following (With change in UserName and Password length validation) UserName Password FirstName DOB (In UnixTimeStamp) CreatedDate (In UnixTimeStamp) In simple we have DataContract and Workflow change between each version 1. How do I name the methods in WCF Service and Main Class Lib1? 2. Do I have to go with any specific pattern for ease development and maintenance? 3. Do I have to have different endpoints for different version? In the above example I have a method named “SaveProfile”. Do I have to name the methods like “SaveProfile1.0”, “SaveProfile2.0”, etc. If that is the case when there is no change between Version “3.0” and “4.0” then there will difficult in maintenance. I’m looking for a approach that will help in ease maintenance

  Read the article

• Communication between WCF service [library] and Self-host [Winform]

  - by Mur Haf Soz

  Introduction: I have a WCF service library and a self-host Winform. Service features is File explorer including (copy, move, delete, new folder, delete... etc) and Task Manager (run, kill, update list). Then now I want to add other features like chatting between self-host and client, send an image from client to self-host so when it received, it is shown in a pictureBox in a new form. Till now I have two endpoints for (Task Manager, File Manager) that runs under one service "MainService". And I set up all the connections using DotNet 4.0 WCF Configuration and Wizards, and I'm using netTcpBinding. Problem: I need to know how to communicate with between WCF service lib and self-host, so I can append a received chat from client on self-host form's textbox TextBoxChat. And also call a client callback from self-host when Send button clicked, to send the message from self-host textbox TextBoxMessage. Let's say this's self-host ChatForm So is it possible to do that in WCF? I would prefer to run ChatEndpoint under MainService, so all Endpoints use one port.

  Read the article

• Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

  - by Mystagogue

  I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

  Read the article

• How to disable authentication schemes for WCF Data Services

  - by Schneider

  When I deployed my WCF Data Services to production hosting I started to get the following error (or similar depending on which auth schemes are active): IIS specified authentication schemes 'Basic, Anonymous', but the binding only supports specification of exactly one authentication scheme. Valid authentication schemes are Digest, Negotiate, NTLM, Basic, or Anonymous. Change the IIS settings so that only a single authentication scheme is used. Apparently WCF Data Services (WCF in general?) cannot handle having more than once authentication scheme active. OK so I am aware that I can disable all-but-one authentication scheme on the web application via IIS control panel .... via a support request!! Is there a way to specify a single authentication scheme on a per-service level in the web.config? I thought this might be as straight forward as making a change to <system.serviceModel> but... it turns out that WCF Data Services do not configure themselves in the web config. If you look at the DataService<> class it does not implement a [ServiceContract] hence you cannot refer to it in the <service><endpoint>...which I presume would be needed for changing its configuration via XML. P.S. Our host is using II6, but both solutions for IIS6 & IIS7 appreciated.

  Read the article

• Returning Meaningful Exceptions from a WCF Project

  - by MissingLinq

  I am pretty new to WCF in general. What little experience I have comes from using fairly simple .SVC services in ASP.NET web applications. I tried experimenting with using a WCF Project for the first time, and ran into a major show-stopper. As I’m sure most are aware, for some strange reason, in a web application in which the customErrors mode is set to On , services (both .ASMX and .SVC) will not return exception details to the client. Instead, the exception and stack trace are emptied, and the message always reads “There was an error processing the request”, which is not at all helpful. When services are directly hosted inside the web application itself, it’s easy to work around this restriction by placing the services in a dedicated folder, and setting for that folder. However, I’m running into this same issue with exceptions not being returned from services that live in a separate WCF project. Thing is, I don’t know how to work around that. In a nutshell: I need to get my WCF Project services to bubble REAL exceptions to the client – or at least, the original exception message, instead of “There was an error processing the request”.

  Read the article

• WCF Services (with RIA)

  - by netlogging

  I am new to WCF and WCF derived services. I am using VS 2010, silverlight 4, ria services 4. Recently I created plain WCF REST services (no RIA, no SOAP) with my endpoint (using wsHttpBinging): <endpoint address="" behaviorConfiguration="wsBehavior" binding="wsHttpBinding" bindingConfiguration="wsbinding" contract="WcfService1.IService1"/> <behaviors> <endpointBehaviors> <behavior name="wsBehavior"> <webHttp/> </behavior>......... I use this service from silverlight 4 client and everything works fine. THEN, i created new project using "silverlight Business application" template which used RIA service. Now the web.config uses DomainServices and when i add wsHttpBind endpoint I doesnot work. I know i am not doing this correctly and i cant find any help online so far. What I am trying to do is creat a RESTful WCF application with RIA (no SOAP) and that i can use from silverlight 4 client. For some reason i cannot get the service working.

  Read the article

• Configuring WCF to Handle a Signature on a SOAP Message from an Oracle Server

  - by AlEl

  I'm trying to use WCF to consume a web service provided by a third-party's Oracle Application Server. I pass a username and password and as part of the response the web service returns a standard security tag in the header which includes a digest and signature. With my current setup, I successfully send a request to the server and the web service sends the expected response data back. However, when parsing the response WCF throws a MessageSecurityException, with an InnerException.Message of "Supporting token signatures not expected." My guess is that WCF wants me to configure it to handle the signature and verify it. I have a certificate from the third party that hosts the web service that I should be able to use to verify the signature. It's in the form of -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- [certificate garble] -----END CERTIFICATE----- Here's a sample header from a response that makes WCF throw the exception: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"> <soap:Header> <wsse:Security soap:mustUnderstand="1" xmlns:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd" xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"> <dsig:Signature xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsig="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"> <dsig:SignedInfo> <dsig:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> <dsig:SignatureMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#rsa-sha1"/> <dsig:Reference URI="#_51IUwNWRVvPOcz12pZHLNQ22"> <dsig:Transforms> <dsig:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> </dsig:Transforms> <dsig:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <dsig:DigestValue> [DigestValue here] </dsig:DigestValue> </dsig:Reference> <dsig:Reference URI="#_dI5j0EqxrVsj0e62J6vd6w22"> <dsig:Transforms> <dsig:Transform Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2001/10/xml-exc-c14n#"/> </dsig:Transforms> <dsig:DigestMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#sha1"/> <dsig:DigestValue> [DigestValue here] </dsig:DigestValue> </dsig:Reference> </dsig:SignedInfo> <dsig:SignatureValue> [Signature Value Here] </dsig:SignatureValue> <dsig:KeyInfo> <wsse:SecurityTokenReference xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"> <wsse:Reference URI="#BST-9nKWbrE4LRv6maqstrGuUQ22" ValueType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-profile-1.0#X509v3"/> </wsse:SecurityTokenReference> </dsig:KeyInfo> </dsig:Signature> <wsse:BinarySecurityToken ValueType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-x509-token-profile-1.0#X509v3" EncodingType="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message-security-1.0#Base64Binary" wsu:Id="BST-9nKWbrE4LRv6maqstrGuUQ22" xmlns:wsu="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd"> [Security Token Here] </wsse:BinarySecurityToken> <wsu:Timestamp wsu:Id="_dI5j0EqxrVsj0e62J6vd6w22" xmlns:wsu="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd" xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd"> <wsu:Created>2010-05-26T18:46:30Z</wsu:Created> </wsu:Timestamp> </wsse:Security> </soap:Header> <soap:Body wsu:Id="_51IUwNWRVvPOcz12pZHLNQ22" xmlns:wsu="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-wssecurity-utility-1.0.xsd"> [Body content here] </soap:Body> </soap:Envelope> My binding configuration looks like: <basicHttpBinding> <binding name="myBinding" closeTimeout="00:01:00" openTimeout="00:01:00" receiveTimeout="00:10:00" sendTimeout="00:01:00" allowCookies="false" bypassProxyOnLocal="false" hostNameComparisonMode="StrongWildcard" maxBufferSize="65536" maxBufferPoolSize="524288" maxReceivedMessageSize="65536" messageEncoding="Text" textEncoding="utf-8" transferMode="Buffered" useDefaultWebProxy="true"> <readerQuotas maxDepth="32" maxStringContentLength="8192" maxArrayLength="16384" maxBytesPerRead="4096" maxNameTableCharCount="16384" /> <security mode="TransportWithMessageCredential"> <transport clientCredentialType="None" proxyCredentialType="None" realm="" /> <message clientCredentialType="UserName" algorithmSuite="Default" /> </security> </binding> </basicHttpBinding> I'm new at WCF, so I'm sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question. I've been trying to Google solutions, but there seem to be so many different ways to configure WCF that I'm getting overwhelmed. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• WCF Message Debugging on Custom Binding

  - by Programming Hero

  I've created a custom binding in WCF for a custom MessageEncoder to allow messages to be written as XML using a wider range of encodings than WCF supports out of the box. The encoder appears to be working and I am able to send and receive messages, but I want to verify that the XML message being written is exactly as required by the service I am trying to consume. I've turned on message logging for WCF using the diagnostic trace listeners to output the messages sent and received over the wire to a log file. Unfortunately, for calls using my encoder, the message is displayed as ... stream ... EDIT: I don't think it's anything to do with my custom encoding. I have experimented with my custom binding a little, switching to using the built-in text encoding and http transport. I still don't get a message body logged in the message trace. Is there anything that needs to be specified within a custom binding to enable message logging?

  Read the article

• Professional WCF 4.0: Windows Communication Foundation with .NET 4.0

  - by cibrax

  The book in which I been working on since last year finally went to the light this week. It has been the result of hard work between me and three other Connected Systems MVP, my friend Fabio Cozzolino, Kurt Claeys and Johann Grabner. If you are interested in learning the new features in WCF 4.0, but also WCF in general and how to apply in real world scenarios, this book is for you. I dedicated three chapters of this book to one of my favorites topics, Security, from the basics to more complicated scenarios with Claim-Based security and Federated authentication using WCF services with Windows Identity Foundation. You can find more information about the book and the table of contents in the Wrox web site here.

  Read the article

• C# WCF/WebService: Interoperable exception handling.

  - by michael paul

  I understand that WCF will convert an exception into a fault and send it back as a SOAP message, but I was wondering if this is truly interoperable. I guess I'm having a tough time trying to figure out this possible scenario: Client (Java) calls a WCF Service (LoginService). Server checks for proper authorization, user authorization fails. Server throws an UnauthorizedAccessException. WCF converts this into a Fault somehow. (* - See Below As Well) Client has to be able to know how to read this Fault. I guess I'm just having a tough time understanding how this could still be interoperable because it is expecting Java to know how to translate a SOAP Fault that .NET encodes from an UnauthorizedAccessException. Also, how does .NET actually convert the exception to a fault, what goes in as the fault code, name, etc. Some of the things seem to be "duh"s like perhaps the Fault Name is "UnauthorizedAccessException", but I'd rather know for sure than guess.

  Read the article

• Passing Custom headers from .Net 1.1 client to a WCF service

  - by sreejith

  I have a simple wcf service which uses basicHttp binding, I want to pass few information from client to this service via custom SOAP header. My client is a .net application targetting .Net 1.1, using visual studio I have created the proxy( Added a new web reference pointing to my WCF service) I am able to call methods in the WCF service but not able to pass the data in message header. Tried to override "GetWebRequest" and added custom headers in the proxy but for some reason when I tried to access the header using "OperationContext.Current.IncomingMessageHeaders.FindHeader" it is not thier. Any idea how to solve this prob? This is how I added the headers protected override System.Net.WebRequest GetWebRequest(Uri uri) { HttpWebRequest request; request = (HttpWebRequest)base.GetWebRequest(uri); request.Headers.Add("tesData", "test"); return request; }

  Read the article

• Testing Workflows &ndash; Test-After

  - by Timothy Klenke

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TimothyK/archive/2014/05/30/testing-workflows-ndash-test-after.aspxIn this post I’m going to outline a few common methods that can be used to increase the coverage of of your test suite.  This won’t be yet another post on why you should be doing testing; there are plenty of those types of posts already out there.  Assuming you know you should be testing, then comes the problem of how do I actual fit that into my day job.  When the opportunity to automate testing comes do you take it, or do you even recognize it? There are a lot of ways (workflows) to go about creating automated tests, just like there are many workflows to writing a program.  When writing a program you can do it from a top-down approach where you write the main skeleton of the algorithm and call out to dummy stub functions, or a bottom-up approach where the low level functionality is fully implement before it is quickly wired together at the end.  Both approaches are perfectly valid under certain contexts. Each approach you are skilled at applying is another tool in your tool belt.  The more vectors of attack you have on a problem – the better.  So here is a short, incomplete list of some of the workflows that can be applied to increasing the amount of automation in your testing and level of quality in general.  Think of each workflow as an opportunity that is available for you to take. Test workflows basically fall into 2 categories:  test first or test after.  Test first is the best approach.  However, this post isn’t about the one and only best approach.  I want to focus more on the lesser known, less ideal approaches that still provide an opportunity for adding tests.  In this post I’ll enumerate some test-after workflows.  In my next post I’ll cover test-first. Bug Reporting When someone calls you up or forwards you a email with a vague description of a bug its usually standard procedure to create or verify a reproduction plan for the bug via manual testing and log that in a bug tracking system.  This can be problematic.  Often reproduction plans when written down might skip a step that seemed obvious to the tester at the time or they might be missing some crucial environment setting. Instead of data entry into a bug tracking system, try opening up the test project and adding a failing unit test to prove the bug.  The test project guarantees that all aspects of the environment are setup properly and no steps are missing.  The language in the test project is much more precise than the English that goes into a bug tracking system. This workflow can easily be extended for Enhancement Requests as well as Bug Reporting. Exploratory Testing Exploratory testing comes in when you aren’t sure how the system will behave in a new scenario.  The scenario wasn’t planned for in the initial system requirements and there isn’t an existing test for it.  By definition the system behaviour is “undefined”. So write a new unit test to define that behaviour.  Add assertions to the tests to confirm your assumptions.  The new test becomes part of the living system specification that is kept up to date with the test suite. Examples This workflow is especially good when developing APIs.  When you are finally done your production API then comes the job of writing documentation on how to consume the API.  Good documentation will also include code examples.  Don’t let these code examples merely exist in some accompanying manual; implement them in a test suite. Example tests and documentation do not have to be created after the production API is complete.  It is best to write the example code (tests) as you go just before the production code. Smoke Tests Every system has a typical use case.  This represents the basic, core functionality of the system.  If this fails after an upgrade the end users will be hosed and they will be scratching their heads as to how it could be possible that an update got released with this core functionality broken. The tests for this core functionality are referred to as “smoke tests”.  It is a good idea to have them automated and run with each build in order to avoid extreme embarrassment and angry customers. Coverage Analysis Code coverage analysis is a tool that reports how much of the production code base is exercised by the test suite.  In Visual Studio this can be found under the Test main menu item. The tool will report a total number for the code coverage, which can be anywhere between 0 and 100%.  Coverage Analysis shouldn’t be used strictly for numbers reporting.  Companies shouldn’t set minimum coverage targets that mandate that all projects must have at least 80% or 100% test coverage.  These arbitrary requirements just invite gaming of the coverage analysis, which makes the numbers useless. The analysis tool will break down the coverage by the various classes and methods in projects.  Instead of focusing on the total number, drill down into this view and see which classes have high or low coverage.  It you are surprised by a low number on a class this is an opportunity to add tests. When drilling through the classes there will be generally two types of reaction to a surprising low test coverage number.  The first reaction type is a recognition that there is low hanging fruit to be picked.  There may be some classes or methods that aren’t being tested, which could easy be.  The other reaction type is “OMG”.  This were you find a critical piece of code that isn’t under test.  In both cases, go and add the missing tests. Test Refactoring The general theme of this post up to this point has been how to add more and more tests to a test suite.  I’ll step back from that a bit and remind that every line of code is a liability.  Each line of code has to be read and maintained, which costs money.  This is true regardless whether the code is production code or test code. Remember that the primary goal of the test suite is that it be easy to read so that people can easily determine the specifications of the system.  Make sure that adding more and more tests doesn’t interfere with this primary goal. Perform code reviews on the test suite as often as on production code.  Hold the test code up to the same high readability standards as the production code.  If the tests are hard to read then change them.  Look to remove duplication.  Duplicate setup code between two or more test methods that can be moved to a shared function.  Entire test methods can be removed if it is found that the scenario it tests is covered by other tests.  Its OK to delete a test that isn’t pulling its own weight anymore. Remember to only start refactoring when all the test are green.  Don’t refactor the tests and the production code at the same time.  An automated test suite can be thought of as a double entry book keeping system.  The unchanging, passing production code serves as the tests for the test suite while refactoring the tests. As with all refactoring, it is best to fit this into your regular work rather than asking for time later to get it done.  Fit this into the standard red-green-refactor cycle.  The refactor step no only applies to production code but also the tests, but not at the same time.  Perhaps the cycle should be called red-green-refactor production-refactor tests (not quite as catchy).   That about covers most of the test-after workflows I can think of.  In my next post I’ll get into test-first workflows.

  Read the article

• Reuse classes and objects for both WCF and non-WCF

  - by joebeazelman

  I have several classes such as Order, Customer, etc. These classes serve for holding data and nothing more. I want to be able to reuse these classes in other projects in the future, but for some reason I don't quite understand, WCF forces me to decorate the data members with the [DataMember] attribute, forcing me to reference WCF plumbing that I will never use in other projects. I would imagine that WCF lets you take any serializable class and use it as a content type. Am I understanding this correctly?

  Read the article

• Cloud Based Load Testing Using TF Service &amp; VS 2013

  - by Tarun Arora [Microsoft MVP]

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/TarunArora/archive/2013/06/30/cloud-based-load-testing-using-tf-service-amp-vs-2013.aspx One of the new features announced as part of the Visual Studio 2013 Ultimate Preview is ‘Cloud Based Load Testing’. In this blog post I’ll walk you through, What is Cloud Based Load Testing? How have I been using this feature? – Success story! Where can you find more resources on this feature? What is Cloud Based Load Testing? It goes without saying that performance testing your application not only gives you the confidence that the application will work under heavy levels of stress but also gives you the ability to test how scalable the architecture of your application is. It is important to know how much is too much for your application! Working with various clients in the industry I have realized that the biggest barriers in Load Testing & Performance Testing adoption are, High infrastructure and administration cost that comes with this phase of testing Time taken to procure & set up the test infrastructure Finding use for this infrastructure investment after completion of testing Is cloud the answer? 100% Visual Studio Compatible Scalable and Realistic Start testing in < 2 minutes Intuitive Pay only for what you need Use existing on premise tests on cloud There are a lot of vendors out there offering Cloud Based Load Testing, to name a few, Load Storm Soasta Blaze Meter Blitz And others… The question you may want to ask is, why should you go with Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test offering. If you are a Microsoft shop or already have investments in Microsoft technologies, you’ll see great benefit in the natural integration this offers with existing Microsoft products such as Visual Studio and Windows Azure. For example, your existing Web tests authored in Visual Studio 2010 or Visual Studio 2012 will run on the cloud without requiring any modifications what so ever. Microsoft’s cloud test rig also supports API based testing, for example, if you are building a WPF application which consumes WCF services, you can write unit tests to invoke the WCF service, these tests can be run on the cloud test rig and loaded with ‘N’ concurrent users for performance testing. If you have your assets already hosted in the Azure and possibly in the same data centre as the Cloud test rig, your Azure app will not incur a usage cost because of the generated traffic since the traffic is coming from the same data centre. The licensing or pricing information on Microsoft’s cloud based Load test service is yet to be announced, but I would expect this to be priced attractively to match the market competition.   The only additional configuration required for running load tests on Microsoft Cloud based Load Tests service is to select the Test run location as Run tests using Visual Studio Team Foundation Service, How have I been using Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test Service? I have been part of the Microsoft Cloud Based Load Test Service advisory council for the last 7 months. This gave the opportunity to see the product shape up from concept to working solution. I was also the first person outside of Microsoft to try this offering out. This gave me the opportunity to test real world application at various clients using the Microsoft Load Test Service and provide real world feedback to the Microsoft product team. One of the most recent systems I tested using the Load Test Service has been an insurance quote generation engine. This insurance quote generation engine is,   hosted in Windows Azure expected to get quote requests from across the globe expected to handle 5 Million quote requests in a day (not clear how this load will be distributed across the day) There was no way, I could simulate such kind of load from on premise without standing up additional hardware. But Microsoft’s Cloud based Load Test service allowed me to test my key performance testing scenarios, i.e. Simulate expected Load, Endurance Testing, Threshold Testing and Testing for Latency. Simulating expected load: approach to devising a load pattern My approach to devising a load test pattern has been to run the test scenario with 1 user to figure out the response time. Then work out how many users are required to reach the target load. So, for example, to invoke 1 quote from the quote engine software takes 0.5 seconds. Now if you do the math,   1 quote request by 1 user = 0.5 seconds   quotes generated by 1 user in 24 hour = 1 * (((2 * 60) * 60) * 24) = 172,800   quotes generated by 30 users in 24 hours = 172,800 * 30 =  5,184,000 This was a very simple example, if your application requires more concurrent users to test scenario’s such as caching, etc then you can devise your own load pattern, some examples of load test patterns can be found here.  Endurance Testing To test for endurance, I loaded the quote generation engine with an expected fixed user load and ran the test for very long duration such as over 48 hours and observed the affect of the long running test on the Azure infrastructure. Currently Microsoft Load Test service does not support metrics from the machine under test. I used Azure diagnostics to begin with, but later started using Cerebrata Azure Diagnostics Manager to capture the metrics of the machine under test. Threshold Testing To figure out how much user load the application could cope with before falling on its belly, I opted to step load the quote generation engine by incrementing user load with different variations of incremental user load per minute till the application crashed out and forced an IIS reset. Testing for Latency Currently the Microsoft Load Test service does not support generating geographically distributed load, I however, deployed the insurance quote generation engine in different Azure data centres and ran the same set of performance tests to measure for latency. Because I could compare load test results from different runs by exporting the results to excel (this feature is provided out of the box right from Visual Studio 2010) I could see the different in response times. More resources on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test Service A few important links to get you started, Download Visual Studio Ultimate 2013 Preview Getting started guide for load testing using Team Foundation Service Troubleshooting guide for FAQs and known issues Team Foundation Service forum for questions and support Detailed demo and presentation (link to Tech-Ed session recording) Detailed demo and presentation (link to Build session recording) There a few limits on the usage of Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service that you can read about here. If you have any feedback on Microsoft Cloud based Load Test service, feel free to share it with the product team via the Visual Studio User Voice forum. I hope you found this useful. Thank you for taking the time out and reading this blog post. If you enjoyed the post, remember to subscribe to http://feeds.feedburner.com/TarunArora. Stay tuned!

  Read the article

• WCF RIA Services feedback

  - by pluginbaby

    If you use or plan to use WCF RIA Services, here is your chance to shape the future of this product, vote or propose features for vNext in this page: http://dotnet.uservoice.com/forums/57026-wcf-ria-services You can find help and ask questions on the current release of RIA Services on the official forum: http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/53.aspx

  Read the article

• WCF and Service Registry

  - by TK Lee

  I am about to build some WCF Services. Those services need to communicate to each others too, in some scenarios. I've done some "Google-ing" about Service Registry but can't figure out how to implement service registry with WCF; is there any other alternate? Is there any Microsoft technology available for Service Registry? I'm new to SOA and I will really appreciate any help or guidance (what and where should I exactly look for registry services).

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >