Broadcom Service Virtualization Reviews

The most important thing is that we can integrate it into our existing test automation and CI tool, which is Jenkins at the moment. Our plan is to elaborate the deployment process for continuous deployment – the integration of the testing tools is very important to us. We have real backends and there are already issues with availability and stability, so we use simulations to mock up the production environment.

There is a range of different kinds of simulations that we can create – capture/replay up to creation of real, elaborate simulations of the back end.

The UI is a pain point. If they had a better UI, it would have a much higher rating.

Integration of RAML files so that you can generate simulations directly from the specifications would be another improvement. For example, some guidance within the tool – if we could customize Service Virtualization, to disable functions we do not need. There are a bunch of functionalities which are part of the solution and we have to go through a number of cascading menus to find what we need. In other words, to simplify the front end.

We don’t, for example, use SAP or Oracle databases that we need to attach, and, therefore, it would be nice to disable these un-needed functions, to reduce the complexity of the GUI. Another point is that if something fails during the testing process, there is a lot of logged information that is useful because the error messages are Service Virtualization specific. It would be helpful to get more meaningful error messages. For example, a malformed JSON file, the error that is returned which is some internal error, but it’s not clear, for example, that it might be a syntax error.

It’s great. The only problem we have is that the UI is not good. The tool is fully implemented in Java, and you can’t move readouts between screens. We can live with it, but we need a really huge screen. And we can’t work with a laptop.

This is one of the reasons we try to get rid of the UI and, instead, to generate templates by script so we don’t have to use the UI. We switched from using the UI to automatic template generation, which is a kind of model-driven testing.

It is very good. The response times are really short. We have a partner, IPT, a CA partner, whom we have engaged for support. So if we have some issues they call CA support, and the response times are really, really quick.

It was already in production when I joined.

If you want to implement something at the enterprise level, then this is an appropriate tool, not something that is open-source or free. Think about how it integrates with other solutions and the product’s reliability. Also, you’ll need professional support for such a solution.

We have a lot of different tasks to perform. We use and value all of the features CA Service Virtualization has to offer.

We've always had problems with test environments. A lot of time was spent on preparing that level and we found a lot of problems with the environments. This ultimately, created a lot of contraints. When we started using Service Virtualization we were able to deploy the application on our test environment without any dependencies or constraints.

Sometimes we are faced with some problems, but CA Service Virtualization is a really felxible tool. When we encounter some problems or issues we just use our own method around it and move forward.

We've used this solution for about 2 years.

We did not encounter any issues with deployment. CA Service Virtualization has a lot of instructions and documentation about deployment.

The solution required a lot of CPU memory, but using enough PC OZU fixed the problems.

We didn't have any issues with scalabilty, but CA has a perfect community where all of their users can find the information needed.

We didn't have the need for technical support. Our team fixed the problems on their own.

We used a lot of other solutions, but switched to CA Service Virtualization because this one tool can cover all of our requirements.

The setup was straightforward as a result of having good documentation and a great community to reach out to for help.

Our team is certified by CA Service Virtualization.

It provides us a high level of integration with all of our solutions, to the extent that we can set up modules with Service Virtualization functionality at the same time. We will do more with it once we get more into it. So far, we have been using it mainly for services.

It's allows us to work more globally across all our teams. Since the tool integrates with our services, we can do more.

I spoke to them at a recent conference and I think they're going to be looking at doing some more JUnit integration to be able to convert JUnit into their solutions. We're still using an older version so, hopefully upgrading to a newer version will enhance some of the features that are already out there that we don't have.

Stability is getting better. When we first started with it, there were some bugs. We had some issues between our environment and the tool.

It seems to be that we'll be able to scale it, as we get more into this tool and other CA tools. It seems like we're able to build one top of the other.

We used technical support quite a bit for different issues that popped up when we first started using the tool or tried to use new features. We’ve received great service. We’ve been working with some senior engineers and they've been taking our input. Hopefully, we'll be able to start working with them a little bit more when they do their baselines for new features.

We were using SoapUI and we were looking for a higher level of integration.

Initial setup was both straightforward and complex. We had some configuration issues, such as conflicts with our firewall. They helped with what they were able to help with. For some of the issues, we needed our security desk and network teams to open up ports and other things like that.

We brought on some new senior management directors and looked at different tools. We evaluated a number of different API testing tools. I don't know them all. Choosing CA was a management decision. I think my new manager had used or seen the tool in the past.

When looking for a vendor, functionality and the user experience are the most important criteria. It has to be easy to use or people aren't going to use it.

Be patient and understanding will come. It's new functionality and all tools work a little bit different.

The most valuable feature, and really SV's main feature, is the versatility of available protocols that cover a very large number of cases.

The product has not been used often by my company but rather by one of our customers. The customer has large dimensions and the product has been used both to compensate for the lack of components (one paid for the use or were not developed) and for performance tests. Its introduction, if maintained over time, should guarantee a huge time saver.

I wish the product had a built-in help function.

We've been using this solution since March of 2014, so about a year-and-a-half.

We did not encounter any major problems with deployment.

We did not encounter any major problems with stability.

We did not encounter any major problems with scaling it.

Customer service in Italian is not very useful. I found the forums on the support site of CA to be much more useful.

The forums provide us better technical support that CA's support here in Italy.

I had never used a solution for service virtualization prior to this. We chose this solution because of our partnership with CA.

The server-side configuration and the start of activities at our customer required the intervention of expert staff of CA because we did not have the necessary experience. I am of the opinion that it is better to follow the advice of experts where things are not specified in a simple manual.

It was done through a vendor team.

I have not edited the offer made to our customer. Being a major customer, I know that CA has created a type of license tailored to their business.

Read the manuals and practice a lot.

It's allowed us to be able to set up virtualization web services quickly and to test unhappy path scenarios. It’s easy to use in setting up virtualization and testing edge-case scenarios.

The time savings it's provided us are huge. We've been able to have a reduction in headcount as well because it requires less staff to manage it. We're simply able to operate more efficiently from a time and human resources perspective.

From a technical use perspective, the improvement in our organization comes from being able to test situations before they arise in production.

I would really like more relevant online documentation. There’s not really enough of it. They should also provide some case studies so that I can see what others have done and how their experiences might help me in my situations.

I'd have no issues with deployment.

I haven’t had any issues as it seems stable.

I haven’t had any issues scaling, so it seems it works well as we grow.

I've never had to use technical support.

I was not involved in the initial setup. I have also not been involved the setup of any new releases.

It loses points in documentation. I’m sure there’s a ton of stuff out there, but the out-of-the-box documentation is lacking.

We use it to have a highly-available development process because we develop our front end and middleware in tandem with our services teams. When their stuff goes down we don’t want them to cause us a delay on deliverables to the client.

Having a virtual service to rely on, we’re able to continue development even when one of their services fails. They provide built-in data handlers for a variety of different protocols. The REST data protocol auto-parses everything, so you can do analytics. It can flex and provide different responses depending on the request, and is easily measurable and repeatable.

We have issues where one of our dev services goes down, but we still have commitments we have to keep. We’re able to continue development and push for service for our clients even when other aspects fail, instead of causing delays.

Improved Mac support would be an improvement. Also, when things fail, I’d like to see meaningful error messages. A more stable client-side application would be a big thing – their server side application is pretty solid.

It’s pretty good. It’s an Eclipse IDE app, so it’s a little old, and their Mac support isn’t as strong as it could be, but otherwise it’s pretty solid. Once you deploy the virtual services everything just kind of works.

We haven’t really tested it at scale. All of our work has been at the single-team level.

I've just used their community support.

We were the pilot team for the solution. It was fairly straightforward; install a package on a server, start up some services, and go.

It’s provided value. We’ve been able to continue development even when we wouldn’t previously have been able to continue. There’s been a learning curve, some hiccups, and a challenge to train new people on the solution. There is some barrier to entry.

LISA VSE and Test Cases.

Hybrid/Dynamic Representational Visualization Service.

UI Testing and Reporting Features.

5+ Years

• Service virtualization (the virtual services created): Virtual service models are very well described and hence able to understand properly.
• Record and playback
• Creating VS from the DevTest console
• Magic string and data de-sensitization and model healing
• Reusing raw traffic files
• Wide range of protocol support, such as HL7 and many others

This product helps some of our customers achieve agility and delivery effectiveness.

The overall installation architecture should be simplified. There are so many components involved in the overall installation and the starting process. They should be made internal, such as:

• Enterprise Dashboard
• Registry
• Portal Broker
• VSE

Instead of all these being manual and optional, they should be compulsory, internal processes.

I have used it for four years.

I did not encounter any stability issues, as such.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support is 8 out of 10.

I previously used a different solution, just to explore it.

As a services organization, we need to have hands-on experience with different products, so that we can give different customers our point of view.

Initial setup was straightforward.

This is the first product in the line that we have used.

I always recommend this tool.