Mark_E
Occasional Contributor
Joined 16 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
Contributions
MTOM according to the specification
As per my post to the support forum at http://www.eviware.com/forums/index.php?topic=2760.0 SoapUI 2.5.1 MTOM processing is incorrectly applying the XOP optimisation to non-canonical (eg. chunked) base64 data Ole's suggestion to add a "Strict MTOM canonicalization" option would be a good solution. Thanks in advance, Mark1.9KViews0likes3CommentsRe: MTOM according to the specification
I have a question on the MTOM support in SoapUI. Apparently according to the specification, MTOM can only be used on base64 data which is in canonical form and cannot contain any whitespaces. This is to allow correct processing of XML signature amongst other things. What is your understanding how it should hancle base64 in non-canonical form? My colleague suggests it should create a multi part but leave the base64 data inline. Martijn.1.5KViews0likes2CommentsRe: SoapUI Stub performance
Thanks /Ole As mentioned before, we're not sure if it is the Mockservice that is the main source of the problem. All I'm after is some benchmarking that might have been done. The mockservice is very simple and returns a static response with a Sequence dispatch type. The Mockservice is indeed very fast when sending sequential requests and to simulate backend processing we've added a response delay of 500ms. Problems occur when performing a ramp up test up to 24 simultaneous users up to a total of 120 requests per second. It might be the number of simultaneous connections to jetty, or some other network setting we're not aware of. We have implemented a simple webservice to do the same task running in WebSphere and it is handling the requests fine. Kind regards.1KViews0likes0CommentsSoapUI Stub performance
We are working on some performance tests and we seem to have a problem with the SoapUI mock services. Is there any documentation of expected performance metrics from SoapUI mock services? Number or concurrent threads comes to mind. Sorry, it's a bit vague but we're working in a restricted environment.2.5KViews0likes3CommentsRe: Can't load groovy script from script library
::) Yes, that works, thanks. Is it possible to have a collection of groovy functions/closures in a file without a name space (default package name)? So for example have a file called lib.groovy in the scripts directory with something useful like: def logInfo = {t -> log.info(t) } def myFunc() { "This is my function" }1.3KViews0likes0CommentsCan't load groovy script from script library
Hi, I am trying to use the script library feature of SoapUI Pro in version 2.5.1 on Windows. I just can't get it to work. When calling a static method on a class or instantiating a class, I receive a "unable to resolve class" error. When I change the groovy file, SoapUI is reporting and update, "MyTest.groovy is new or has changed, reloading... But using anything in the file fails. === MyTest.groovy package test public class MyTest { static def test = { log.info("Hello Test") } } === // Groovy script in Groovy Test Step test.MyTest.test() Results in: unable to resolve class test.MyTest @ line 13KViews0likes3CommentsRe: WSS signing with symmetric key -- secret key
Thank you for the quick response. Do you have an estimation when this would be fixed? Alternately, is it possible to extend this functionality with a java custom built plug-in or groovy script? I haven't had much time to delve into the extendability of soapUI.1.2KViews0likes0Comments