Sitecore Boost received a small but important bug fix to relax the caching of Rendering Items for renderings added on standard values.
Following on from my first introduction to Sitecore.Boost post, I have made some further improvements.
Before delving into the results of the announcement, Sitecore.Boost patches will also work for Sitecore pre 8.1 😉
You can find the project here: https://github.com/cardinal252/Sitecore.Boost
A small update has been released for Sitecore.Boost. This update results in the following:
- An approximate 61% improvement in rendering performance over Sitecore 8.1 OOTB
- An approximate 84% improvement in rendering performance over Sitecore 8.2 OOTB
Using all boost patches on both 8.1 and 8.2, this results in Sitecore 8.1 being 67% faster than Sitecore 8.2. Sitecore 8.1 is still slower than its predecessors, so the trend continues – at least this takes it some of the way back 😀
Happy boosting 😉 😀
For a while now, I have been (not so) quietly working away on performance testing on various codebases as well as Sitecore itself for varying clients and my own satisfaction.
You can find it here: https://github.com/cardinal252/Sitecore.Boost
What is it?
With the concepts behind some of this work, I decided to create an open source project to allow others to see what has been done and contribute their production tested performance patches for the Sitecore platform.
This project contains a test harness setup complete with jMeter tests & serialized content.
The test content when deployed renders ‘Hello World’ renderings varying by the following:
- Number of renderings – 10 to 25
- Output Caching – Cached on Item, Cached on Standard Values, Cached on Rendering Definition, Uncached
- Rendering type – Controller / View Renderings
- Model – With / without
By putting the Sitecore rendering engine under load and performing profiles (using your tool of choice), many areas of Sitecore have shown consistent traits that can benefit from optimisation to their code.
Being a sell sword, I can comment on a lot of different stacks (along with providing my preferred). Following on from a discussion Sitecore Community – CI / CD I thought I would share my thoughts a little on this subject:
Fundamentally most Continuous Integration / Delivery environments involve the following elements (in a very rough ordering): Source Control > Build Tool > Automated Testing Tools > Code Metrics Tool(s) > Deployment Tool(s) > Sitecore Content Deployment Tools > Environment Scaffolding > Monitoring
Before I go any further, I think I should state what I believe to be the MOST important goals of your CI build environment.
- The simplest to manage / manipulate. The tooling should get out of you way and soak close to zero time.
- Should be maintainable by the majority of the development team, not ‘key holders’.
- Deployments should be done by non-developers.
- It just works – once set up, you shouldn’t have to tinker with it.
My biggest bug bear of any system is where only the Solution Architects / Team Leads can manage the build process. QA’s testers / product owners should be responsible for sending stuff to QA / Production (if there is to be ANY human involvement at all).
So hear it is split down by element:
Over the last couple of months, within the Glass Mapper team we have been busy considering a few things regarding the framework and decided this upcoming release of Glass Mapper should aim to improve on the flexibility of certain areas of the product as well as the ability for developers to get involved with our source more easily. Here is a run down of the key features of this new release and what it means.
A while ago I started the process to soft release a little module I have been working on. It is called the ‘Advanced Content Security’ module (ACS). It’s primary purposes are the following:
- To provide alternative layouts to pages that are ‘restricted’ but not unreadable by users – think the average newspaper site that allows you 10 views before you have to sign up.
- To provide rules based read and restriction security
- To provide a rules engine based solution to the initialisation of users
Today, the latest version was approved and added to the market place.
For a more detailed overview, you can find more information about it here:
The source code resides here:
The module itself can be downloaded here
Have been asked a couple of times lately about ways to extend Glass Mapper given that in many cases it does not call the renderField pipeline. Glass Mapper is a mature and extensible API, so it in itself is not so tricky to customise.
Below are a couple of example snippets on how you can modify / extend rendering of html (note – this code compiles, I have not run it in a production solution).
This is a super quick post.
In quite a number of test scenarios I would choose to abstract the ‘doing’ something with a Sitecore item to a repository class that could only be integration tested. This would mean that for that test scenario, generally the only necessity is to ensure that the item is not null, then rely on the repository to do the real work for me.
I recently came up with this method of creating a dummy item to enable unit testing of a method that takes an item as a parameter. Note – this is no substitute for FakeDb – but in the majority of scenarios – for real unit testing, I would be using Glass Mapper anyway.
Here is a simple method to create a test item without any app.config or anything.
This post should hopefully be a short one. Just to note that in the since v4.0.3 of Glass Mapper we have added a SitecoreContentContext. This class inherits from ISitecoreContext just as the regular SitecoreContext does.
This differs from the standard SitecoreContext in that it uses Sitecore.Context.ContentDatabase instead of Sitecore.Context.Database.
ISitecoreContext sitecoreContext = new SitecoreContentContext();
In a recent Glass release I was working on an issue that led to Mike making a comment on how I work as a programmer. The particular issue in question was actually quite straight forward to solve – I wrote unit tests that showed the issue, wrote some sandbox tests that showed how code behaved in the underlying Sitecore library, then fixed the tests approriately. All typical of TDD. The normal thing for me though is then to write a unit test that performs this simple fix 1,000,000 times emitting the result of stopwatch timings at various points. Mike jokingly commented at the time that this was ‘typical Nat’ which, to be fair, he was right on.
In this post I will look at the effect on work done in the constructor and how it has affects your development life in the context of modern DI practice – in particular – the DI principle.