Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 65C1417DBB for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:48:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 87312 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2015 10:48:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 87283 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2015 10:48:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jmeter.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jmeter.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 87270 invoked by uid 99); 16 Apr 2015 10:48:42 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:48:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of shmulikk@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.176 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.176] (HELO mail-wi0-f176.google.com) (209.85.212.176) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:48:38 +0000 Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so92027910wiu.1 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=e41G+WgEGCaSq+JjERRb9b2UkcTzPgrMAaq5bk4pBBk=; b=jhFKUcUi8rtzYy1cREmE20hDXjAqAtJV8/EKOVouAyryDg3cnhbOa6yn4ayrzJnHF4 BXtesFm4ARhxbPfNfsUqgeE35jXgqgO2kcC8EDMRKH0cXCkxE+5mv04yCuDz3YbPK4Xb f0f7CrjLtbgWHZsrCuIsSLI6QZUrjNauf8I4v3xE2pfyTdQML4J3iYDNxSmsMzdIYljH 8wIhUcLCrR46YRuywp8y5b34NDavKBxZXPcQcjIe3R3VKRbwQ093sM9Fi/vLwTs04pcY 56vKsIsGi+gs832zo502pChYCTm5wwgw1hPs2xyU6NEFz80qvmGmCQ07dWNvU9JDsphp hHKg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.94.164 with SMTP id dd4mr60052795wjb.56.1429181162521; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.206.198 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Apr 2015 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <552E6577.80005@ya.ru> References: <552E302E.5040304@ya.ru> <552E6577.80005@ya.ru> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:46:02 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Post-Sampler Timers From: Shmuel Krakower To: "dev@jmeter.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb0410283124f0513d52b2b X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7bb0410283124f0513d52b2b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, that's just my own feedback / opinion. It doesn't reflect others. If the new implementation feels right, I'll adopt it, I just cannot see the benefit of that, yet. Neither I don't see the issue with having "Think Time" elements between actions, such as: http://pasteboard.co/2BDxVS03.png What do you mean by "...which makes test plan too heavy." ? Shmuel Krakower. www.Beatsoo.org - re-use your jmeter scripts for application performance monitoring from worldwide locations for free. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Andrey Pokhilko wrote: > But the sampler approach (test action is also a sampler) requires to > have a pause element after each sampler, which makes test plan too > heavy. Timers have scoping, this allows lean test-plan building. That's > why I want to have post-sample timers. > > Andrey Pokhilko > > On 04/15/2015 03:12 PM, Shmuel Krakower wrote: > > Hi, > > I do exactly as ubikloadpack mentioned which makes things a lot easier = to > > look at. > > I don't see much value with pre_sleep and post_sleep. > > It would have been nice to have a "sleep sampler", which will reduce th= e > > need to create TestAction with Timer in it, as done today. > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Shmuel Krakower. > > www.Beatsoo.org - re-use your jmeter scripts for application performanc= e > > monitoring from worldwide locations for free. > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM, UBIK LOAD PACK Support < > > support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> Very good idea ! > >> We always use the following strategy to have this feature: > >> > >> - Use TestAction with 0 sleep and nest in it the Timer. This way > timer > >> pauses where it is located for the expected time and not > SampleResult is > >> generated. > >> > >> So you idea would help as it is a bit harder to maintain. > >> One note although, how would you handle scoping ? > >> Would it stay as is ? If yes, won't code be difficult and clumsy ? > >> > >> Regards > >> @ubikloadpack > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Andrey Pokhilko wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> When I try to introduce JMeter to new people, I frequently see them > >>> confused with our way to set "think times" before request. Especially > >>> those who used to use some other testing tools, where think-time is > >>> _after_ request. > >>> > >>> I personally think that think-time should be made after request, > because > >>> its duration depends on the results of the request. If you have got > long > >>> text as a result of your request, you supposed to spend some time > >>> reading it. If you have short error message, you supposed to do your > >>> next request much faster. The _delay_ time before request still makes > >>> sense, because it allows manipulating throughput and synchronize > >> requests. > >>> I would like to contribute to JMeter following changes: > >>> > >>> 1. Add a property for Timers, marking them as "pre-sampler" or > >>> "post-sampler" timers > >>> 2. Modify thread execution flow to call pre-timers and post-timers > >>> accordingly > >>> 3. Modify timers UIs where it is reasonable, adding radio button to > >>> change timer mode > >>> > >>> > >>> Any thoughts/objections on this? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Andrey Pokhilko > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Regards > >> Ubik Load Pack Team > >> Follow us on Twitter > >> > >> > >> Cordialement > >> L'=C3=A9quipe Ubik Load Pack > >> Suivez-nous sur Twitter > >> > > --047d7bb0410283124f0513d52b2b--