jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2017 16:32:28 GMT
On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
<p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com> 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>
> 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:;>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Great !
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
>> <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:;>> 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:;>
>> > > >>>> :
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>> 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>

Mime
View raw message