jmeter-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <ra0...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Recorder: Transaction Control
Date Thu, 23 May 2019 21:13:09 GMT
Hi Alexander

The problem with "number_prefix_url" is you have more than one trhead
groupt in your script.
You can sort by thread group

Antonio



Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 21:53, Alexander Podelko <apodelko@yahoo.com.invalid>
a écrit :

>  Hi Philippe,
> Oops, it appears that I still need to work on my communication skills. It
> is rather opposite to what I meant.
> The number in the beginning are important for me - because, as far as I
> understand, it is the only way to ensure that transaction/requests would be
> ordered properly in all reports/listeners.[of course, we can create
> transaction name / prefix with our number - then autonumeration doesn't
> matter, but that is some additional efforts]
>
> 1) So my actual suggestion for prefixes was to change it
>
> from prefix_number_url (as in 5.1.1)
> to number_prefix_url
> to ensure proper sorting.
>
> 2) On transaction name, maybe we should make it consistent with "Apply
> Naming Policy". If we want that way of naming for transaction reporting,
> why not to do it during recording?
> So (if we keep numbering in the beginning) transaction would be:
> sequentialNumber_transactionName
> and requests underneath transaction:
>
>
> sequentialNumber_transactionName-0sequentialNumber_transactionName-1sequentialNumber_transactionName-2...
> [somewhat reversing what I wrote below - while I am not sure that these
> schema is optimal, at least it would be consistent with what we want it to
> be for reporting]
>
> Or the idea to move sequential numbers to the end is to make it consistent
> with that naming policy?
>
> Sorry for confusion.
>
> Thanks,Alex
>
>     On Saturday, May 18, 2019, 2:59:03 PM EDT, Philippe Mouawad <
> philippe.mouawad@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hello,
>
> Suggestion about number implemented in :
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63450
>
> Feel free to test it and give feedback using next nightly build.
> Thanks
> Regards
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:46 PM Alexander Podelko
> <apodelko@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Thanks for the great feature - 'Recorder: Transaction Control' !
> > We have two options there - 'Transaction name' and 'Perfix'. A couple of
> > thoughts here.
> >
> > When we select 'Transaction name', it uses that name for both Transaction
> > Controller and ALL sample names underneath. Not optimal approach in my
> case
> > - I'd rather keep urls as sample names (to be able separate them) and use
> > the transaction name for Transaction Controller only.
> > When we select 'Prefix', it puts it before the number - which, as far as
> I
> > understand here, may mess up sorting in reports etc. So I wonder if
> putting
> > prefix behind the number may be a better option at least in some cases.
> > Not saying that these suggestion are better - I guess it shouldn't be a
> > big problem to have all 4 options. Or, maybe, some kind of format
> options -
> > where you specify exactly what transaction and sample names would be -
> > would be a more generic and elegant solution.
> > Just thoughts....
> >
> > Thanks,Alex
> >
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>

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