How Behaviour Driven Development Works Well with Event Driven Architectures

 Behaviour Driven Development (BDD) and Event-Driven Architecture (EDA) work well together as they complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Using both can result in a shorter time to market for new functionality and a more maintainable system.

Behaviour Driven Development encourages a common language between users and developers in describing requirements in a form the users can understand but can also automatically be checked as the application is developed and maintained. BDD increases the inclusion of users, focuses on requirements capture and maintains the development velocity as the application increases in complexity.

Figure 1. Behaviour Driven Development for the high level with Test Driven Development for the low level

 

Table 1. Pros and Cons of Behaviour-Driven Development

 

Event-Driven Architecture models interactions between services as events. Events are facts about something that happened to represent a state change, such as an order placed or a payment processed, without implying which action, if any must be taken, unlike request/response or actor patterns. EDA supports loosely coupled services, greater fault tolerance, and observable interactions between services can help minimise technical debt.

Figure 2. Example of an Event Driven Kappa Architecture microservice with feedback

 

Table 2. Pros and Cons of Event-Driven Architectures

 

Regression Tests

When we came to design our kitchen recently, there were some things we knew we wanted but couldn’t imagine the details. However, once we could see an initial design based on what we knew we wanted, we were able to get down to the details.

Designing applications can be similar. There are things we know upfront, but there are other things we can only decide on once we see it come to life. EDA makes it natural to record what the application does do, in an easily observable way, and construct a test to ensure this behaviour doesn’t change. From the output of such a test, the user can see with each iteration, how they wish to customise the event processor or microservice, rather than having to specify all the details in advance.

Figure 3. Using known inputs and designed output to iteratively specify a requirement

 

How BDD and EDA are More Effective in Combination

EDA naturally supports the recording and replaying of events produced by each microservice. EDA allows regression tests to be constructed and maintained easily with minimal input from end-users. While BDD benefits from responsive feedback from users, building regression tests can help in that process so users can see how they want to customise the behaviour. Utilising event-driven regression tests reduces the need for users to be always available to give feedback on incremental improvements.

BDD naturally supports the development of a common language between all microservices when microservices could quickly diverge without someone who can authoritatively say how things should be named. The common language can be referred to in code and kept consistent by having a shared schema of events and data transfer objects.

Figure 4. Simplified EDA used by a number of our customers

 

Recording the outputs of EDA microservices makes it easy to create test input data for new services. In many cases, you can start by determining the output events you need to produce and then recording the events produced by existing systems for the inputs. BDD can determine functionality requirements to turn inputs into outputs. Breaking this functionality into stages, you can construct the events that should occur at the stages in between.

Microservices Framework

Chronicle Software has a testing methodology and libraries for the behaviour-driven development of event-driven systems. This methodology will be introduced in the following article.

Our microservice framework supports low latency; it uses restartable, scalable, distributed, highly available processes that are very easy to test and debug.

Conclusion

We have used Behaviour Driven Development to establish the application’s requirements from users, and Behaviour Driven Development to automate testing to ensure the application meets those requirements as it is developed and changes are made to add more functionality. We believe this is a very effective way to build and maintain back-end real-time software.

Event-Driven Architecture decomposes complex interactions into easily describable and testable components for real-time streaming data processing.

Using both together provides a uniquely productive environment to deliver complex functionality.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Java is Very Fast, If You Don’t Create Many Objects

Image
  You still have to watch how many objects you create. This article looks at a benchmark passing events over TCP/IP at 4 billion events per minute using the net.openhft.chronicle.wire.channel package in Chronicle Wire and why we still avoid object allocations..  One of the key optimisations is creating almost no garbage. Allocation is a very cheap operation and collection of very short-lived objects is also very cheap. Does this really make a difference? What difference does one small object per event (44 bytes) make to the performance in a throughput test where GC pauses are amortised? While allocation is as efficient as possible, it doesn’t avoid the memory pressure on the L1/L2 caches of your CPUs and when many cores are busy, they are contending for memory in the shared L3 cache.  Results Benchmark on a Ryzen 5950X with Ubuntu 22.10. JVM Vendor, Version No objects Throughput, Average Latency* One object per event Throughput, Average Latency* Azul Zulu 1.8.0_322 60.6 M event/s, 528
Read more

System wide unique nanosecond timestamps

A Unique Identifier can be very useful for tracing. Those ids are even more useful when they contain a high-resolution timestamp.  Not only do they record the time of an event, but if unique can help trace events as they pass through the system. Such unique timestamps however can be expensive depending on how they are implemented.   This post explores a lightweight means of producing a unique, monotonically increasing system-wide nano-second resolution timestamp available in our open-source library. Uses for Unique Identifiers Unique identifiers can be useful to associate with a piece of information so that information can be referred to later unambiguously. This could be an event, a request, an order id, or a customer id. They can naturally be used as a primary key in a database or key/value store to retrieve that information later. One of the challenges of generating these identifiers is avoiding creating duplicates while not having an increasing cost.  You could record every identi
Read more

Comparing Approaches to Durability in Low Latency Messaging Queues

Image
  A significant feature of Chronicle Queue Enterprise is support for TCP replication across multiple servers to ensure the high availability of application infrastructure. I generally believe that replicating data to a secondary system is faster than syncing to disk, assuming the round trip network delay wasn’t high due to quality networks and co-located redundant servers. This is the first time I have benchmarked it with a realistic example. Little’s Law and Why Latency Matters In many cases, the assumption is that the latency won't be a problem as long as throughput is high enough. However, latency is often a key factor in why the throughput isn’t high enough. Little’s law states, “ the long-term average number  L  of customers in a  stationary  system is equal to the long-term average effective arrival rate  λ  multiplied by the average time  W  that a customer spends in the system”. In computer terminology, the level of concurrency or parallelism a system has to support must be
Read more