jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Artem Fedorov <artem.fedo...@blazemeter.com>
Subject Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:54:20 GMT
I attached patch in this bug:
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591


On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Ralf Roeber <raro42@gmail.com> wrote:

> I use the workbench for recording.
> I propose to add recording information to documentation about workbench.
> I propose to rename workbench to "temporary elements"
>
> -0
>
> El 12 nov. 2017 1:33 p. m., "Felix Schumacher" <
> felix.schumacher@internetallee.de> escribió:
>
>
>
> Am 10. November 2017 16:07:39 MEZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com>:
> >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 only use the workbench for the recorder and the mirror server. If I can
> place them somewhere else, I personally would be fine with removal of
> workbench.
>
> But I understand sebb's concerns.
>
> So it is a weak +1 from me.
>
> Felix
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <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> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message