Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multiple client endpoints #51

Open
testillano opened this issue Sep 4, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Multiple client endpoints #51

testillano opened this issue Sep 4, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@testillano
Copy link

testillano commented Sep 4, 2021

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Not actually a problem, but a limitation which could provide a better testing environment.

Describe the solution you'd like
Extend the schema and the hermes logic to accept multiple clients (a section to define the server and port within a json list) instead of the current unique one.
So, you could define a traffic profile to, for example, launch an specific Request definition through an specific client endpoint (a new field should be added in the schema here to specify on which endpoint is desired to be sent), and then mix with other requests with different destinations.
The solution permits mixed-protocols testing relaying on REST API for those which are not http2 traffic servers.

Additional context
Imagine that your system under test is composed by the main process to test and then some server components mocking the data base or whatever facility provided to simulate the SUT context. Now imagine that those mocks have an smart REST API which could be used to inspect the traffic reveiced. From hermes you could also use that REST API as part of traffic validation delegating on those external agents. In this way you could make complex test flows including whatever kind of agent (servers, even clients, for different protocols, not only http2) just having a REST API for them which is based in http2 (or even http/1 with a nginx reverse proxy in fornt of them).
This feature could be backward compatible with a default definition (not a one-item-list but just accepting current schema definition or a list with 2 (or even 1) or more items).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant