You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jmeter.apache.org by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com> on 2017/11/04 12:07:33 UTC
Workbench : Let's drop it ?
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
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>.
I agree.
It's confusing/distracting for new users and I've never seen anyone use it
(on purpose).
It would be best if we had usage data but I'm sure there will be an
outpouring of complaints if this is a well used feature.
I'm always in favour of removing seldom used features/code it often helps
improve the quality of what remains and makes it easier for people to get
started.
Thanks
Graham
On Sat, 4 Nov 2017, 12:18 Maxime Chassagneux, <mc...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never use it, except for recording script, so +1 for me.
>
> Regards
>
> 2017-11-04 13:07 GMT+01:00 Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>:
>
> > 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
> >
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hello,
PR merged this evening, I am happy with the change as I feel we removed a
lot of weird conditional codes.
Good by Workbench ! We won't miss you :-)
Thanks for the PR, merged with little modifications to avoid meaning less
popup menus.
I feel we should find a better name to "Non Test Elements":
- it's negative
- it's meaningless, it says what they are not, but not what they are
Proposals:
- Test Building Elements
- Debug Elements
Regards
Philippe M.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Artem Fedorov <artem.fedorov@blazemeter.com
> wrote:
> 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 <ra...@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 <ap...@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
> > >> > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Artem Fedorov <ar...@blazemeter.com>.
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 <ra...@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 <ap...@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
> >> > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
> >>
> >>
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Ralf Roeber <ra...@gmail.com>.
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 <ap...@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
>> > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
>>
>>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Felix Schumacher <fe...@internetallee.de>.
Am 10. November 2017 16:07:39 MEZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad <ph...@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 <ap...@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
>> > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
>>
>>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Friday, November 10, 2017, Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 of course forgot Deepak, very sorry.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sebbaz@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
>> >>> <p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','philippe.mouawad@gmail.com');>
>> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Great !
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Validate Functionality
Posted by Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>.
This is a very quick mock-up but hopefully this helps explain what I
am thinking:
https://www.fluidui.com/editor/live/preview/cF9YVTlxS0JUU3ZCbHdVTjl1WDQ0QlpUNzhVdXhyNm5UNA==
Click the person with a green tick icon at the top which will 'load' a
new (modified) view results tree, then you can edit the params and
rerun the thread group in the new window.
Let me know if it makes sense.
Thanks
Graham
On 14 November 2017 at 21:20, Philippe Mouawad
<p....@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote:
> Hello Graham,
> Your proposals are interesting but it maybe be useful to create some
> mock-up (modifiable/sharable) if possible.
>
> I think we could by the way enhance the Run experience in GUI, an idea:
>
> - Be able to have something like Eclipse "Run Configuration" to
> configure user defined properties without having to restart , see
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61755
>
> Regards
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I will list the user steps to see if that is clearer:
>>
>> 1. User right clicks on thread group (or has one selected, or any
>> sub-part, and clicks "validate user" button)
>> 2. A new window appears containing a View Results Tree with the name
>> "<thread group> - Validate User" and the user can watch the thread run -
>> this window also displays the properties such as # of threads, iterations,
>> pause enabled/disabled.
>> 3. As items are clicked in validate view results tree the corresponding
>> item in the main window is selected.
>>
>> This can be further refined but this should make the validate feature far
>> more intuitive, efficient and useful.
>>
>> A potentially simpler, but slightly less efficient UX, #2:Existing View
>> Results Tree is selected, or add to the Test Plan and then select.
>>
>> Does that make sense? If not I can do a mock-up.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graham
>>
>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 19:38 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
>> support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Graham,
>>> My answers below.
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I thought I'd start a new thread as not to derail the Workbench one.
>>> >
>>> > You understood correctly, the validate function was a much needed
>>> addition
>>> > to JMeter, it currently needs more importance in the UI. I think it
>>> could
>>> > be vastly improved with a button on the top row and by auto adding, and
>>> > switching to, the results tree view once pressed. Or perhaps use a
>>> > separate/temp tree view that's not attached to the test plan but lives
>>> in a
>>> > separate window?
>>> >
>>> Would it be possible to show some mock-up ?
>>> I don't clearly see what you have in mind , but I am very curious to
>>> understand.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>>
>>> +1 once I see mockup :-) or a patch if it's faster for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Graham
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 16:39 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
>>> > support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi Graham,
>>> > Thanks for your answers and feedback.
>>> >
>>> > My answers below.
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > +1
>>> > >
>>> > > ...
>>> > > I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual
>>> thread
>>> > > groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have
>>> to
>>> > > manually add).
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're
>>> looking
>>> > for already exists:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Right click on Thread Group:
>>> > 1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
>>> > (configurable), No pauses (configurable)
>>> > 2. Start No Pause
>>> > 3. Start
>>> >
>>> > Did I misunderstand ?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
>>> > > workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a
>>> bugzilla
>>> > > on?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
>>> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cordialement
>>> L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
>>> Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
> Ubik-Ingénierie
>
> UBIK LOAD PACK Web Site <http://www.ubikloadpack.com/>
>
> UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER <https://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Re: Validate Functionality
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <p....@ubik-ingenierie.com>.
Hello Graham,
Your proposals are interesting but it maybe be useful to create some
mock-up (modifiable/sharable) if possible.
I think we could by the way enhance the Run experience in GUI, an idea:
- Be able to have something like Eclipse "Run Configuration" to
configure user defined properties without having to restart , see
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61755
Regards
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
> I will list the user steps to see if that is clearer:
>
> 1. User right clicks on thread group (or has one selected, or any
> sub-part, and clicks "validate user" button)
> 2. A new window appears containing a View Results Tree with the name
> "<thread group> - Validate User" and the user can watch the thread run -
> this window also displays the properties such as # of threads, iterations,
> pause enabled/disabled.
> 3. As items are clicked in validate view results tree the corresponding
> item in the main window is selected.
>
> This can be further refined but this should make the validate feature far
> more intuitive, efficient and useful.
>
> A potentially simpler, but slightly less efficient UX, #2:Existing View
> Results Tree is selected, or add to the Test Plan and then select.
>
> Does that make sense? If not I can do a mock-up.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 19:38 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
> support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Graham,
>> My answers below.
>> Regards
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I thought I'd start a new thread as not to derail the Workbench one.
>> >
>> > You understood correctly, the validate function was a much needed
>> addition
>> > to JMeter, it currently needs more importance in the UI. I think it
>> could
>> > be vastly improved with a button on the top row and by auto adding, and
>> > switching to, the results tree view once pressed. Or perhaps use a
>> > separate/temp tree view that's not attached to the test plan but lives
>> in a
>> > separate window?
>> >
>> Would it be possible to show some mock-up ?
>> I don't clearly see what you have in mind , but I am very curious to
>> understand.
>>
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>>
>> +1 once I see mockup :-) or a patch if it's faster for you.
>>
>>
>> > Graham
>> >
>> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 16:39 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
>> > support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Graham,
>> > Thanks for your answers and feedback.
>> >
>> > My answers below.
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1
>> > >
>> > > ...
>> > > I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual
>> thread
>> > > groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have
>> to
>> > > manually add).
>> > >
>> >
>> > Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're
>> looking
>> > for already exists:
>> >
>> > 1. Right click on Thread Group:
>> > 1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
>> > (configurable), No pauses (configurable)
>> > 2. Start No Pause
>> > 3. Start
>> >
>> > Did I misunderstand ?
>> >
>> >
>> > This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
>> > > workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a
>> bugzilla
>> > > on?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>> Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
>> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>
>>
>> Cordialement
>> L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
>> Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Ubik-Ingénierie
UBIK LOAD PACK Web Site <http://www.ubikloadpack.com/>
UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER <https://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Re: Validate Functionality
Posted by Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>.
I will list the user steps to see if that is clearer:
1. User right clicks on thread group (or has one selected, or any sub-part,
and clicks "validate user" button)
2. A new window appears containing a View Results Tree with the name
"<thread group> - Validate User" and the user can watch the thread run -
this window also displays the properties such as # of threads, iterations,
pause enabled/disabled.
3. As items are clicked in validate view results tree the corresponding
item in the main window is selected.
This can be further refined but this should make the validate feature far
more intuitive, efficient and useful.
A potentially simpler, but slightly less efficient UX, #2:Existing View
Results Tree is selected, or add to the Test Plan and then select.
Does that make sense? If not I can do a mock-up.
Thanks
Graham
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 19:38 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
> Hi Graham,
> My answers below.
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I thought I'd start a new thread as not to derail the Workbench one.
> >
> > You understood correctly, the validate function was a much needed
> addition
> > to JMeter, it currently needs more importance in the UI. I think it could
> > be vastly improved with a button on the top row and by auto adding, and
> > switching to, the results tree view once pressed. Or perhaps use a
> > separate/temp tree view that's not attached to the test plan but lives
> in a
> > separate window?
> >
> Would it be possible to show some mock-up ?
> I don't clearly see what you have in mind , but I am very curious to
> understand.
>
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> +1 once I see mockup :-) or a patch if it's faster for you.
>
>
> > Graham
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 16:39 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
> > support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Graham,
> > Thanks for your answers and feedback.
> >
> > My answers below.
> > Regards
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > ...
> > > I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual
> thread
> > > groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have
> to
> > > manually add).
> > >
> >
> > Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're
> looking
> > for already exists:
> >
> > 1. Right click on Thread Group:
> > 1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
> > (configurable), No pauses (configurable)
> > 2. Start No Pause
> > 3. Start
> >
> > Did I misunderstand ?
> >
> >
> > This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
> > > workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a
> bugzilla
> > > on?
> > >
> >
> > Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards
> Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
> Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>
>
> Cordialement
> L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
> Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
>
Re: Validate Functionality
Posted by UBIK LOAD PACK Support <su...@ubikloadpack.com>.
Hi Graham,
My answers below.
Regards
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought I'd start a new thread as not to derail the Workbench one.
>
> You understood correctly, the validate function was a much needed addition
> to JMeter, it currently needs more importance in the UI. I think it could
> be vastly improved with a button on the top row and by auto adding, and
> switching to, the results tree view once pressed. Or perhaps use a
> separate/temp tree view that's not attached to the test plan but lives in a
> separate window?
>
Would it be possible to show some mock-up ?
I don't clearly see what you have in mind , but I am very curious to
understand.
>
> Thoughts?
>
+1 once I see mockup :-) or a patch if it's faster for you.
> Graham
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 16:39 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
> support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Graham,
> Thanks for your answers and feedback.
>
> My answers below.
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > ...
> > I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual thread
> > groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have to
> > manually add).
> >
>
> Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're looking
> for already exists:
>
> 1. Right click on Thread Group:
> 1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
> (configurable), No pauses (configurable)
> 2. Start No Pause
> 3. Start
>
> Did I misunderstand ?
>
>
> This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
> > workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a bugzilla
> > on?
> >
>
> Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
>
--
Regards
Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Cordialement
L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Validate Functionality
Posted by Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>.
I thought I'd start a new thread as not to derail the Workbench one.
You understood correctly, the validate function was a much needed addition
to JMeter, it currently needs more importance in the UI. I think it could
be vastly improved with a button on the top row and by auto adding, and
switching to, the results tree view once pressed. Or perhaps use a
separate/temp tree view that's not attached to the test plan but lives in a
separate window?
Thoughts?
Graham
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 16:39 UBIK LOAD PACK Support <
support@ubikloadpack.com> wrote:
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your answers and feedback.
My answers below.
Regards
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
> +1
>
> ...
> I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual thread
> groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have to
> manually add).
>
Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're looking
for already exists:
1. Right click on Thread Group:
1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
(configurable), No pauses (configurable)
2. Start No Pause
3. Start
Did I misunderstand ?
This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
> workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a bugzilla
> on?
>
Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by UBIK LOAD PACK Support <su...@ubikloadpack.com>.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for your answers and feedback.
My answers below.
Regards
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk> wrote:
> +1
>
> I think dropping it will simplify the code and the UX in the most efficient
> way, especially as time is always short for contributors.
>
> It seems generally confusing and not especially useful:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44746278/why-
> workbench-is-shown-as-default-in-jmeter
> http://blog.sourcepole.ch/2011/01/04/the-jmeter-
> workbench-a-trapdoor-for-the-newbie/
>
> From the docs: "The WorkBench simply provides a place to temporarily store
> test elements while not in use, for copy/paste purposes, or any other
> purpose you desire."
>
> This can be replicated (as Andrey said) in the test plan by a separate
> tread group and just disabling or deleting it before running a test, this
> is less likely to confuse and for people to lose work.
>
> I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual thread
> groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have to
> manually add).
>
Except for the manually added View Results Tree, the feature you're looking
for already exists:
1. Right click on Thread Group:
1. Validate : Runs by default 1 thread (configurable), 1 iteration
(configurable), No pauses (configurable)
2. Start No Pause
3. Start
Did I misunderstand ?
This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
> workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a bugzilla
> on?
>
Yes , create the remaining part as per my previous comment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graham
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 15:07 Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@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
> > > > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >
>
--
Regards
Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com> Team
Follow us on Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Cordialement
L'équipe Ubik Load Pack <http://ubikloadpack.com>
Suivez-nous sur Twitter <http://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Graham Russell <gr...@ham1.co.uk>.
+1
I think dropping it will simplify the code and the UX in the most efficient
way, especially as time is always short for contributors.
It seems generally confusing and not especially useful:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44746278/why-workbench-is-shown-as-default-in-jmeter
http://blog.sourcepole.ch/2011/01/04/the-jmeter-workbench-a-trapdoor-for-the-newbie/
From the docs: "The WorkBench simply provides a place to temporarily store
test elements while not in use, for copy/paste purposes, or any other
purpose you desire."
This can be replicated (as Andrey said) in the test plan by a separate
tread group and just disabling or deleting it before running a test, this
is less likely to confuse and for people to lose work.
I think to improve the UX would be to enable running of individual thread
groups, single threaded with a tree results view (that you don't have to
manually add).
This would be far more intuitive and better align to a usual load test
workflow but far more work and maybe something I should raise a bugzilla on?
Thanks
Graham
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 at 15:07 Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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 ?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@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
> > > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Milamber <mi...@apache.org>.
On 10/11/2017 15:07, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
> 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 ?
-0 for me.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@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
>>> <ph...@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 <se...@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.
>>
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@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 ?
Thanks
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@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
> > <ph...@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 <se...@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.
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru>.
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
> <ph...@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 <se...@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.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
Why not consider how to make the Workbench more intuitive and useful?
On 8 November 2017 at 16:47, Philippe Mouawad
<ph...@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 <se...@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.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
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 <se...@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.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
<p....@ubik-ingenierie.com> 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 <ar...@blazemeter.com>
> 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:;>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Great !
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
>> <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:;>> 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:;>
>> > > >>>> :
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>> 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>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <p....@ubik-ingenierie.com>.
Hello,
I’d say Test Plan.
I suggest testcompiler ignores them
Regards
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Artem Fedorov <ar...@blazemeter.com>
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:;>
> > wrote:
>
> > Great !
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <apc4@ya.ru
> <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:;>> 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:;>
> > > >>>> :
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> 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>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Artem Fedorov <ar...@blazemeter.com>.
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
> wrote:
> Great !
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru> 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 <ap...@ya.ru> 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
> > >>>> :
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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.
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
Great !
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru> 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 <ap...@ya.ru> 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
> >>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru>.
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 <ap...@ya.ru> 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
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru>.
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 <ap...@ya.ru> 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
>>> :
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru> 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
> >:
> >
> >> 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.
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Andrey Pokhilko <ap...@ya.ru>.
+1 from me, I think it is possible to automatically move elements from
loaded test plans.
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 <ph...@gmail.com>:
>
>> 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
>>
Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?
Posted by Maxime Chassagneux <mc...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I never use it, except for recording script, so +1 for me.
Regards
2017-11-04 13:07 GMT+01:00 Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>:
> 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
>