Introducing camel-drools component

Introduction In this post I’ll try to introduce

Apache Camel component for Drools library – a great an widely used Business Rules Management System. When we decided to use Drools 5 inside Servicemix for some big project, it turned out that there is no production-ready solution that will meet out requirements. The servicemix-drools component is lacking several very important features, eg:
* StatefulSession database persistence for long-running processes,
* support for Complex Event Processing (event-based rules),
* Apache Camel based deployment to ease rules consequence processing,
* Support for Drools unit testing framework. To satisfy those requirements, Maciek Próchniak created a set of utility classes, which helped us run Drools inside Camel route. Starting from this codebase, we did some refactoring, add few new features (eg. pluggable object persistance) and released camel-drools component on TouK Open Source Projects forge.

Example To summarize key features and show how to use camel-drools component, let’s try to implement an example taken from Drools Flow documentation:

There is kind-of ‘process’ where first Task1 and Task2 are created and can be executed in parallel. Task3 needs to be executed after completion of both Task1 and Task2.

Implementation The class Task have 2 fields, a

name and completed flag, we also need an id for session serialization:

public class Task implements Serializable {
    private static final long serialVersionUID = -2964477958089238715L;    
    private String name;
    private boolean completed;

    public Task(String name) {
        this(name, false);
    }

    public Task(String name, boolean completed) {
        this.name = name;
        this.completed = completed;
    }

    public String getName() {
        return name;
    }

    public boolean isCompleted() {
        return completed;
    }

    public long getId() {
        return name.hashCode();
    }
}

We also define another class representing the state of process, needed to fire rules in correct order. Using that model, we now can implement our ruleset, defined in

task.drl file:

import org.apache.camel.component.drools.stateful.*

global org.apache.camel.component.drools.CamelDroolsHelper helper

rule "init"
salience 100
    when
        $s : State(name=="start")
    then
        insert(new Task("Task1"));
        insert(new Task("Task2"));
        retract($s);
end

rule "all tasks completed"
    when
        not(exists Task(completed==false))
        not(exists State(name=="end"))
    then
        insert(new Task("Task3"));
end

rule "Task3 completed"
salience 30
    when 
        Task(name=="Task3", completed==true)
    then
        insert(new State("end"));
        helper.send("direct:completed", "completed");
end

In first rule – “init” we insert two tasks and then retract state object from the session to avoid recursive execution of that rule. Rule “all tasks completed” shows the power of Drools – we just declare that this rule is fired when “there are no incompleted tasks” and don’t have to specify which tasks. So this shows rather ‘declarative’ than ‘imperative’ way of development – we have much more expressiveness than just step-by-step actions which lead to some situation. The

CamelDroolsHelper is a wrapper for ProducerTemplate and can be used to send some message trough another Camel route as consequence of a rule. But how are Tasks mark as completed in Drools session? The idea is to expose session through Camel endpoint to allow insert or update objects, which are passed as body of exchanges:

public class TaskRouteBuilder extends RouteBuilder {
    @Override
    public void configure() throws Exception {
        from("direct:drools")
            .setHeader("drools.key", constant(new MultiKey(new String[] {
                "process-1"
            })))
            .to("drools:task.drl?stateful=true");
        from("direct:completed").to("log:test");
    }
}

The Drools endpoint is described by

"drools:task.drl?stateful=true" URI. It loads definition of rules from task.drl file and runs endpoint in stateful mode (described next paragraph). When object is passed to this endpoint, it is inserted (or updated) to session and fireAllRules() method is called. Another important thing is “drools.key” header – it is used to distinguish sessions between “processes”. E.g. when we have some customer-oriented rules, we want to group facts and events in session per customer – by some customer id. When the “drools.key” is set to that id, sessions for different customers could be found and saved separately.

Stateful session persistence Camel-drools component can be used in two modes:

stateful *and *stateless. The main difference between those is session persistence – only in stateful mode session is stored in database. So long duration event rules are correctly handled only in this mode – and this is what we used in this example. Let’s look at Spring context definition:

task_id

As you can see, there are some requirements for database objects to handle session persistence correctly – two tables: one for KnowlegdeStatefulSession and one for objects (facts and events) persistence. You can name them freely, just provide those names to

sessionTable and objectTable properties of sessionDAO. A sequence for id generation is also needed.

Route and rules testing Here is example test for TaskRouteBuilder:

@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public class TaskRouteBuilderTest extends TaskRouteBuilder {

    DefaultCamelContext ctx;
    ProducerTemplate tpl;
    MockSessionDAO dao;

    @Before
    public void makeContext() throws Exception {
        ctx = new DefaultCamelContext();
        ctx.addComponent("drools", new DroolsComponent(ctx));
        ApplicationContext appCtx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext(
            new String[] {
                "camel-drools-context.xml",
                "mock-dao-context.xml"
            });
        dao = (MockSessionDAO) appCtx.getBean("sessionDAO");
        ctx.setRegistry(new ApplicationContextRegistry(appCtx));
        ctx.addRoutes(this);
        ctx.addRoutes(new RouteBuilder() {
            @Override
            public void configure() throws Exception {
                from("direct:completed").to("mock:test");
            }
        });
        ctx.start();
        tpl = ctx.createProducerTemplate();
    }

    @Test
    public void testUpdate() throws Exception {
        Endpoint endpoint = ctx.getEndpoint("direct:drools");
        tpl.requestBody(endpoint, new State("start"));
        SessionWithIdentifier session = dao.getSession();
        Assert.assertEquals(2, session.getSession().getFactHandles().size());
        tpl.requestBody(endpoint, new Task("Task1", true));
        tpl.requestBody(endpoint, new Task("Task2", true));
        Assert.assertEquals(3, session.getSession().getFactHandles().size());
        tpl.requestBody(endpoint, new Task("Task3", true));

        MockEndpoint mock = MockEndpoint.resolve(ctx, "mock:test");
        mock.expectedMessageCount(1);
        mock.setResultWaitTime(5000 L);
        mock.assertIsSatisfied();
    }
}

In setup method some required initialization is done – camel-drools-context.xml file is loaded and MockSessionDao created. The test first starts process by passing State object with “start” name to Drools session through Camel route. This should add Task1 and Task2 to session – and it’s tested by counting the factHadles in session. Next, Task1 and Task2 are updated by making them completed, which should result in Task3 present in session – another factHandle. Last step is to complete Task3 and check that last rule is executed by assertions on MockEndpoint. You can download source code for this example and whole component from

here – this is branch for Camel 1.x version, which we use in our project.

You May Also Like

Integration testing custom validation constraints in Jersey 2

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources.

Custom constraints

One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class:

@Document
public class Todo {
    private Long id;
    @NotNull
    private String description;
    @NotNull
    private Boolean completed;
    @NotNull
    private DateTime dueDate;

    @JsonCreator
    public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) {
        this.description = description;
        this.dueDate = dueDate;
        this.completed = false;
    }
    // getters and setters
}

Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand - what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) - but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification:

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForCreation {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && todo.getDescription() != null
                && todo.getDueDate() != null;
        }
    }
}

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForModification {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null);
        }
    }
}

And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint:

@POST
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...}

@PUT
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...}

And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model.

Integration testing

There are in general two approaches to integration testing:

  • test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment
  • test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block.

Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap - an Arquillian subproject:

    WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext();
    webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp");
    webAppContext.setContextPath("/");
    File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml")
                .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies()
                .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile();
    for (File file: mavenLibs) {
        webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI()));
    }
    webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI()));

    webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] {
        new AnnotationConfiguration(),
        new WebXmlConfiguration(),
        new WebInfConfiguration()
    });
    server.setHandler(webAppContext);

(this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here)

Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos):

@Test
@Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation")
public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) {
    Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo));

    assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode());
}

private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() {
    return $(
        new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().build()
    );
}

OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!

I recently joined a team trying to switch a monolithic legacy system into set of RESTful services in Java. They decided to use latest 2.x version of Jersey as a REST container which was not a first choice for me, since I’m not a big fan of JSR-* specs. But now I must admit that JAX-RS 2.x is doing things right: requires almost zero boilerplate code, support auto-discovery of features and prefers convention over configuration like other modern frameworks. Since the spec is still young, it’s hard to find good tutorials and kick-off projects with some working code. I created jersey2-starter project on GitHub which can be used as starting point for your own production-ready RESTful service. In this post I’d like to cover how to implement and integration test your own validation constraints of REST resources.

Custom constraints

One of the issues which bothers me when coding REST in Java is littering your class model with annotations. Suppose you want to build a simple Todo list REST service, when using Jackson, validation and Spring Data, you can easily end up with this as your entity class:

@Document
public class Todo {
    private Long id;
    @NotNull
    private String description;
    @NotNull
    private Boolean completed;
    @NotNull
    private DateTime dueDate;

    @JsonCreator
    public Todo(@JsonProperty("description") String description, @JsonProperty("dueDate") DateTime dueDate) {
        this.description = description;
        this.dueDate = dueDate;
        this.completed = false;
    }
    // getters and setters
}

Your domain model is now effectively blured by messy annotations almost everywhere. Let’s see what we can do with validation constraints (@NotNulls). Some may say that you could introduce some DTO layer with own validation rules, but it conflicts for me with pure REST API design, which stands that you operate on resources which should map to your domain classes. On the other hand - what does it mean that Todo object is valid? When you create a Todo you should provide a description and due date, but what when you’re updating? You should be able to change any of description, due date (postponing) and completion flag (marking as done) - but you should provide at least one of these as valid modification. So my idea is to introduce custom validation constraints, different ones for creation and modification:

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForCreation.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForCreation {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForCreation, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && todo.getDescription() != null
                && todo.getDueDate() != null;
        }
    }
}

@Target({TYPE, PARAMETER})
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = ValidForModification.Validator.class)
public @interface ValidForModification {
    //...
    class Validator implements ConstraintValidator<ValidForModification, Todo> {
    /...
        @Override
        public boolean isValid(Todo todo, ConstraintValidatorContext constraintValidatorContext) {
            return todo != null
                && todo.getId() == null
                && (todo.getDescription() != null || todo.getDueDate() != null || todo.isCompleted() != null);
        }
    }
}

And now you can move validation annotations to the definition of a REST endpoint:

@POST
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response create(@ValidForCreation Todo todo) {...}

@PUT
@Consumes(APPLICATION_JSON)
public Response update(@ValidForModification Todo todo) {...}

And now you can remove those NotNulls from your model.

Integration testing

There are in general two approaches to integration testing:

  • test is being run on separate JVM than the app, which is deployed on some other integration environment
  • test deploys the application programmatically in the setup block.

Both of these have their pros and cons, but for small enough servoces, I personally prefer the second approach. It’s much easier to setup and you have only one JVM started, which makes debugging really easy. You can use a generic framework like Arquillian for starting your application in a container environment, but I prefer simple solutions and just use emdedded Jetty. To make test setup 100% production equivalent, I’m creating full Jetty’s WebAppContext and have to resolve all runtime dependencies for Jersey auto-discovery to work. This can be simply achieved with Maven resolved from Shrinkwrap - an Arquillian subproject:

    WebAppContext webAppContext = new WebAppContext();
    webAppContext.setResourceBase("src/main/webapp");
    webAppContext.setContextPath("/");
    File[] mavenLibs = Maven.resolver().loadPomFromFile("pom.xml")
                .importCompileAndRuntimeDependencies()
                .resolve().withTransitivity().asFile();
    for (File file: mavenLibs) {
        webAppContext.getMetaData().addWebInfJar(new FileResource(file.toURI()));
    }
    webAppContext.getMetaData().addContainerResource(new FileResource(new File("./target/classes").toURI()));

    webAppContext.setConfigurations(new Configuration[] {
        new AnnotationConfiguration(),
        new WebXmlConfiguration(),
        new WebInfConfiguration()
    });
    server.setHandler(webAppContext);

(this Stackoverflow thread inspired me a lot here)

Now it’s time for the last part of the post: parametrizing our integration tests. Since we want to test validation constraints, there are many edge paths to check (and make your code coverage close to 100%). Writing one test per each case could be a bad idea. Among the many solutions for JUnit I’m most convinced to the Junit Params by Pragmatists team. It’s really simple and have nice concept of JQuery-like helper for creating providers. Here is my tests code (I’m also using builder pattern here to create various kinds of Todos):

@Test
@Parameters(method = "provideInvalidTodosForCreation")
public void shouldRejectInvalidTodoWhenCreate(Todo todo) {
    Response response = createTarget().request().post(Entity.json(todo));

    assertThat(response.getStatus()).isEqualTo(BAD_REQUEST.getStatusCode());
}

private static Object[] provideInvalidTodosForCreation() {
    return $(
        new TodoBuilder().withDescription("test").build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withDueDate(DateTime.now()).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().withId(123L).build(),
        new TodoBuilder().build()
    );
}

OK, enough of reading, feel free to clone the project and start writing your REST services!