jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Philippe Mouawad <philippe.moua...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Regression in 3.0 / Bug 59401 / Possible solutions
Date Sun, 01 May 2016 21:28:07 GMT
On Sunday, May 1, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 May 2016 at 22:14, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 May 2016 at 21:27, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 1 May 2016 at 21:12, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 1 May 2016 at 20:53, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Hello,
> >> >> >> > As you know a regression has been reported on 3.0 related
to
> >> >> Compressed
> >> >> >> > responses management.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > HC4.5.2 differs in its behaviour with 4.2.6, it removes
3
> headers
> >> >> after
> >> >> >> > uncompressing the response:
> >> >> >> > - Content-Length
> >> >> >> > - Content-Encoding
> >> >> >> > - Content-MD5
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I attached a fix to Bug 59401 that introduces a
> >> ResponseInterceptor at
> >> >> >> > first position to save initial Headers.
> >> >> >> > These headers are then used by JMeter to fill in
> >> >> >> > SampleResult#responseHeaders
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I don't think the fix can introduce regressions but your
review
> is
> >> >> >> welcome
> >> >> >> > as long as alternative solutions proposals.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The drawback I see in this patch is that it introduces
a new
> >> >> >> > ResponseInterceptor and saves Headers in localContext
impacting
> >> >> slightly
> >> >> >> > memory and CPU usage.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > An alternative solution, would be to modify slightly
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/httpclient/blob/4.5.x/httpclient/src/main/java/org/apache/http/client/protocol/ResponseContentEncoding.java#L142
> >> >> >> > to remove the code that removes the headers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -1; the headers cannot remain as they are no longer correct.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But this can break existing test plans that would use the
missing
> >> >> headers
> >> >> > no ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> However an alternative might be to copy the original values
to an
> >> >> >> X-prefixed header before removal.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > isn't it strange that JMeter adds headers ?
> >> >> > How users can distinguish between servers headers and jmeter ones
?
> >> >>
> >> >> X-JMeter-Content-xxx
> >> >>
> >> >> Also JMeter can remove them again before storing the response.
> >> >> They would only be used as temporary storage
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't get the whole picture of what you propose ans how it
> >> > avoid breaking tests.
> >>
> >> You were proposing to add a ResponseInterceptor that saves the headers
> >> in localContext
> >>
> >> I'm suggesting saving them on the response instead.
> >>
> >> So when processing the response, JMeter looks for
> >>
> >> X-JMeter-Content-xxx
> >> rather than
> >> Content-xxx
> >>
> >> This assumes it knows which reponses have been uncompressed.
> >>
> >> Alternatively, if it cannot find Content-xxx it looks for
> >> X-JMeter-Content-xxx.
> >
> >
> > Doing so it changes response size.
>
> It's easy enough to calculate the response size after the temporary
> headers have been removed.
>
> > I'm afraid of the impacts of this solution and possible regressions.
>
> How would it be different from your patch?

First because as I don't have the patch, it looks to me more invasive , so
a patch would make the discussion either useless or at least more simple

>
> > But a patch would make it clear for me.
>
> It's basically the same as your patch.
> Just the storage method is different.
>
> One reason I proposed this is that it would be a possible option for
> HC to provide the headers.

I don't get this

> I don't know if that would be acceptable, but if it is, then it would
> be possible to drop the interceptor.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > Could you provide a patch ?
> >> >
> >> > thanks
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Thx
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Regards
> >> >> >> > Philippe
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Cordialement.
> >> >> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Cordialement.
> >> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
>


-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message