jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru>
Subject Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Date Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:01:04 GMT
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.


Mime
View raw message