You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jmeter.apache.org by Alexander Podelko <ap...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2019/05/06 17:46:25 UTC
Recorder: Transaction Control
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
Re: Recorder: Transaction Control
Posted by Antonio Gomes Rodrigues <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <ap...@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
> <ap...@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.
>
Re: Recorder: Transaction Control
Posted by Alexander Podelko <ap...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
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 <ph...@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 <ap...@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.
Re: Recorder: Transaction Control
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
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 <ap...@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.