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: Enhancement to be able to ignore DEBUG Sampler in ResultCollector
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:02:24 GMT
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 March 2014 22:31, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > They differ because in Test Action case, there is a sleep  which is taken
> > as processing of Sampler.
>
> If you set the Test Action sleep to zero, it won't affect the TC output.
>
> But my aim was to control better pause time.
So ok it answers other needs but not my main one.

> > While with my strategy the timer being a child of DebugSampler it will
> act
> > as TestAction but as time is within a timer it will not affect time taken
> > by DebugSampler.
> > Make the test sebb you will see.
>
> I have, and I did not see a problem.
>
> Set it to > 0 and you will see the difference

> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:26 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 March 2014 21:53, Philippe Mouawad <philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Shmuel Krakower <shmulikk@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Regarding the timer just put it under A Test Action which is already
> >> hidden
> >> >> from results...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No it is not the same, because  I usually use a Transaction Controller
> >> and
> >> > have HTTP Sampler as its children .
> >> > Using Test Action will make Transaction Sampler report time taken by
> HTTP
> >> > Sampler + Test Action which I don't want.
> >> > While using Timer will give correct time.
> >>
> >> The Debug Sampler is a sampler, the same as the Test Action sampler.
> >> So I don't see how they differ when used under a TC.
> >> Note that the Test Action controller itself does not have to wait.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> www.beatsoo.org - free application performance monitoring from world
> >> wide
> >> >> locations.
> >> >> On Mar 25, 2014 11:38 PM, "Philippe Mouawad" <
> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On 25 March 2014 21:27, Philippe Mouawad <
> >> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:05 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> On 25 March 2014 07:42, Shmuel Krakower <shmulikk@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > Maybe we can go with simple approach of adding
a boolean
> data
> >> >> member
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > sampler base class of Hidden and all listeners
add a piece
> of
> >> code
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > ignore those who are marked hidden?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> The boolean would have to be added to the SampleEvent
/
> >> SampleResult
> >> >> > > >> class, as Listeners only operate on them.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> It would be possible to check this flag before invoking
the
> file
> >> >> > output
> >> >> > > >> section.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> However the sample would still be sent to all Listener
GUIs,
> even
> >> >> ones
> >> >> > > >> that operate on "real" data, such as the Summariser.
> >> >> > > >> Yes, one could amend all of these as well to reject
"debug"
> data,
> >> >> but
> >> >> > > >> what about all the 3rd party code?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> It has long been a fundamental design feature of
JMeter that
> all
> >> >> > > >> results go to all Listeners in scope, and all results
are sent
> >> >> equally
> >> >> > > >> to file and GUI.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> I think changing this strategy is extremely risky,
and will
> >> likely
> >> >> > > >> cause more problems than the minor issue it is proposed
to
> solve.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > I think there is a misunderstanding.
> >> >> > > > I



-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

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