From dev-return-10519-apmail-jmeter-dev-archive=jmeter.apache.org@jmeter.apache.org Sat Nov 18 11:32:57 2017 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 058A510BE8 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 86075 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2017 11:32:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jmeter-dev-archive@jmeter.apache.org Received: (qmail 86039 invoked by uid 500); 18 Nov 2017 11:32:56 -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 86028 invoked by uid 99); 18 Nov 2017 11:32:56 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D27241A126E for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 6.098 X-Spam-Level: ****** X-Spam-Status: No, score=6.098 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_COUK=1.1, RDNS_NONE=3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DmtGLTjBS2mZ for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ham1.co.uk (unknown [178.62.53.111]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 240D05F3DE for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ham1.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2C740491 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ham1.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ham1.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qNF_EuxwUbNc for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (mail-qk0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mysmtpaccount) by ham1.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7892340205 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id a142so2412845qkb.5 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 03:32:45 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7Xa7RoOItSGGnecBFwVpcB5Ya5O7qJMiDLeWW4Rr6Nz8YHvRT1 4RMWgOuNwxAwYBk9qzjlzU+ovlhg9QKKxScho6k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYOLcKuoQzeFiQz1rDLO9Fw/QGPXcugBxuB8CVPKtmtE2T/UK+imEaP3yOmEyX5VGFnwnybTJHFVfjqgOjXHeQ= X-Received: by 10.55.221.212 with SMTP id u81mr12802082qku.174.1511004764529; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 03:32:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.214.74 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Nov 2017 03:32:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Graham Russell Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:32:14 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: XPath Extractor : Drop Tidy Option To: dev@jmeter.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1147a0c03e68a7055e403629" --001a1147a0c03e68a7055e403629 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +0 I agree that CSS should be preferred for HTML and, in general, I'm in favour of removing seldom used/broken bits of functionality which don't warrant the cost of keeping them around, but I don't know enough about it nor how often XPath is currently used by people to say +1 for this yet. Maybe worth deprecating it and emailing the user mailing list to see the reaction? Graham On 16 November 2017 at 19:20, Philippe Mouawad wrote: > Hello, > Tidy option AFAIK used to allow using XPath Extractor for HTML. > I don't think it's needed anymore since we have CSS/JQuery extractor which > is: > - Up to date > - Powerful > - Performing much better than XPath > > I propose to drop tidy options from XPath. > I even propose to think about dropping jtidy library which would mean : > > - Either Dropping AnchorModifier or finding a better alternative to > jtidy to it if it's useful > > IMO, we should drop it, as it doesn't work with Distributed testing as it > requires keeping the previous SampleResult response Data to be able to work > which Stripping mode clears. > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. --001a1147a0c03e68a7055e403629--