jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From UBIK LOAD PACK Support <supp...@ubikloadpack.com>
Subject Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 16:38:38 GMT
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your answers and feedback.

My answers below.
Regards

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <graham@ham1.co.uk> wrote:

> +1
>
> I think dropping it will simplify the code and the UX in the most efficient
> way, especially as time is always short for contributors.
>
> It seems generally confusing and not especially useful:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44746278/why-
> workbench-is-shown-as-default-in-jmeter
> http://blog.sourcepole.ch/2011/01/04/the-jmeter-
> workbench-a-trapdoor-for-the-newbie/
>
> From the docs: "The WorkBench simply provides a place to temporarily store
> test elements while not in use, for copy/paste purposes, or any other
> purpose you desire."
>
> This can be replicated (as Andrey said) in the test plan by a separate
> tread group and just disabling or deleting it before running a test, this
> is less likely to confuse and for people to lose work.
>
> I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual thread
> groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have to
> manually add).
>

Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're looking
for already exists:

   1. Right click on Thread Group:
      1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
      (configurable), No pauses (configurable)
      2. Start No Pause
      3. Start

Did I misunderstand ?


This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
> workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a bugzilla
> on?
>

Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.




>
> Thanks
>
> Graham
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 15:07 Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If we look at consensus, we have:
> >
> >    - 3 (+1) to remove it (Maxime, Antonio and me) with favor to move the
> >    elements inside Test plan as disabled (so backward compat). If we have
> > a PR
> >    or patch that does that, I'll merge it after testing as much as
> > possible.
> >    - 1 (-1) or (0) for sebb, do you agree sebb ? what would be your exact
> >    position ?
> >
> >
> > @Felix, @Milamber, @Vladimir,@Graham, @Mikhail , any thoughts on this ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see any point for Workbench to exist. Simply disabling elements
> > > in-place makes them temporary stored anywhere in test plan.
> > >
> > > Do we have a decision to remote it or not? I don't want to spend
> > > resources if we don't have consensus.
> > >
> > > Andrey Pokhilko
> > >
> > > 09.11.2017 13:41, sebb пишет:
> > > > Why not consider how to make the Workbench more intuitive and useful?
> > > >
> > > > On 8 November 2017 at 16:47, Philippe Mouawad
> > > > <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> As you say, it’s oddity.
> > > >> A tool should be intuitive, this part is not, we cannot always say,
> > > rtfm.
> > > >> You know that lot of people don’t read docs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let’s try and see if it is that complex.
> > > >>
> > > >> We shouldn’t say , we cannot touch, JMeter is not legacy, so we
> touch
> > ,
> > > >> break then fix .
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
> > > >>> <p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >>>> Hello,
> > > >>>> I’d say Test Plan.
> > > >>>> I suggest testcompiler ignores them
> > > >>> That would involve a lot of testing to ensure nothing broke.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Are you sure it's worth it?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There have been other instances where what seems to be a minor
> change
> > > >>> turns out to be far more intrusive than first expected.
> > > >>> Dropping Workbench seems like such a case to me; it's been part
of
> > > >>> JMeter for so long that there are bound to be lots of places that
> > > >>> assume it is present.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I agree that the Workbench is a bit of an oddity, but I think
> > removing
> > > >>> it is going to prove much more of a headache than improving the
> > > >>> documentation to explain it better.
> > > >>> And potentially find more uses for it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Regards
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Artem Fedorov <
> > > >>> artem.fedorov@blazemeter.com <javascript:;>>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Hello,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If we dropped WorkBench, in which element we can add Non-Test
> > > Elements
> > > >>>>> (HTTP Mirror Server, HTTP(S) Test Script Recorder, Property
> > Display)?
> > > >>>>> Can we add these Non-Test Elements to Test Plan (root)
or Test
> > > Fragment?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > > >>>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > > >>>>> Без
> > > >>>>> вирусов. www.avast.ru
> > > >>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > > >>>>> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > > >>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > > >>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Great !
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> > > >>> <javascript:;>
> > > >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> FYI BlazeMeter will attempt to implement this
change and
> > contribute
> > > >>> it.
> > > >>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 04.11.2017 17:06, Andrey Pokhilko пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>> I'll need to think about it.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 04.11.2017 17:01, Philippe Mouawad пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andrey
Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> > > >>> <javascript:;>
> > > >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> +1 from me, I think it is possible
to automatically move
> > > >>> elements
> > > >>>>>> from
> > > >>>>>>>>>> loaded test plans.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Do you have some time to contribute a
patch for this if you
> > think
> > > >>>>> it's
> > > >>>>>>>>> needed ?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Andrey Pokhilko
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 04.11.2017 15:18, Maxime Chassagneux
пишет:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I never use it, except for recording
script, so +1 for me.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-11-04 13:07 GMT+01:00 Philippe
Mouawad <
> > > >>>>>>> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com <javascript:;>
<javascript:;>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> :
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Workbench element is confusing
for beginners who don't
> > > >>> understand
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> clearly its use.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thinking more about it, I
don't see today why we should
> > still
> > > >>>>> keep
> > > >>>>>>> it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The only advantage of this
element is Non Test Elements
> > which
> > > >>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> be made available from Test
Plan directly.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When running a test those
element would not impact test
> > plan.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The only issue is backward
compatibility, should we try to
> > > >>> move
> > > >>>>>>>>>> elements in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> workbench under test plan
or just mention a backward
> > > >>>>>> incompatibility.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Users would manually move
there elements to Test Plan.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Cordialement.
> > > >>>>>> Philippe Mouawad.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Cordialement.
> > > >>>> Philippe Mouawad.
> > > >>>> Ubik-Ingénierie
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> UBIK LOAD PACK Web Site <http://www.ubikloadpack.com/>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER <https://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Cordialement.
> > > >> Philippe Mouawad.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
>



-- 

Regards
Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>


Cordialement
L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>

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