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: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 23:37:04 GMT
On Friday, November 10, 2017, 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 ?
>
I of course forgot Deepak, very sorry.

>
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sebbaz@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
>> >>> <p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','philippe.mouawad@gmail.com');>
>> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Great !
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>
>
>

-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

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