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 2022/05/01 14:31:13 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release JMeter 5.5 RC1
Hello,
I submitted:
https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/709
Regards
On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 9:52 AM Philippe Mouawad <ph...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
> I updated ticket.
>
> I don't promise I'll have time to revert commit, but I'll try this
> week-end.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:21 PM Bruno DEMION <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> I don't reproduce the issue of bug 65885 on JMeter 5.3/5.4.2 (i ask a
>> simple test case on bugzilla)
>>
>> Can you revert the commit? we can try to fix the issue before a new RC
>> if we can find the solve in few days.
>>
>> Milamber
>>
>> On 28/04/2022 08:47, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > I don't have a fix for now , I didn't look deeply but for now as we
>> don't
>> > have in CSV file the fact the "Ignore status" is set, I don't see how to
>> > fix it.
>> > Since it's a regression, I think we need to revert the change if nobody
>> has
>> > an idea, and start a new release.
>> >
>> > What do you think ?
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Philippe
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:44 AM Milamber <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Philippe,
>> >>
>> >> Need to cancel RC2 for have a fix (or a rollback)? or i continue with
>> >> the RC process?
>> >>
>> >> Milamber
>> >>
>> >> On 27/04/2022 11:23, Philippe Mouawad wrote:
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>> Sorry for late reply @Milamber <ma...@gmail.com> , I
>> >>> see you're releasing.
>> >>> I noticed a regression on Reporting that may be problematic, in the
>> >>> error tables, the assertion message takes precedence on error code
>> >>> which makes analysis
>> >>> more complex.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's a regression introduced by
>> >>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65885.
>> >>> Only when ignore status is checked should this happen.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:13 AM Milamber <milamber@apache.org
>> >>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I will prepare the RC2 today
>> >>>
>> >>> Milamber
>> >>>
>> >>> On 23/04/2022 11:02, Felix Schumacher wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > What about trying an RC2 of JMeter 5.5?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I updated our dependencies and added a workaround for the UI
>> >>> problem.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Felix
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Am 18.03.22 um 17:35 schrieb Milamber:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Ready for RC2? (I think that no?)
>> >>> >> cc @Vladimir
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 16/03/2022 22:42, UBIK LOAD PACK Support wrote:
>> >>> >>> Hello,
>> >>> >>> Looks good to me.
>> >>> >>> Let's do another RC with this.
>> >>> >>> Regards
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
>> >>> >>> sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com
>> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>>> Could we make the setting java version dependant ?
>> >>> >>>> By default, the setting would be commented in
>> jmeter.properties.
>> >>> >>>> Then, the code would use the appropriate default value
>> >>> according to
>> >>> >>>> Java
>> >>> >>>> version.
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> So I suggest changing
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/jmeter/blob/53a992c8179f0f64fe1993df34bda6594856cf5e/src/jorphan/src/main/java/org/apache/jorphan/gui/ui/KerningOptimizer.java#L48
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> into something like maxLengthWithKerning = currentJava < 17
>> ?
>> >>> -1 :
>> >>> >>>> 10000;
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> Vladimir
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> ср, 16 мар. 2022 г. в 20:25, Philippe Mouawad <
>> >>> >>>> p.mouawad@ubik-ingenierie.com
>> >>> <ma...@ubik-ingenierie.com>
>> >>> >>>>> :
>> >>> >>>>> Could we make the setting java version dependant ?
>> >>> >>>>> If it’s worth it as it will introduce additional config
>> >>> complexity
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022, Vladimir Sitnikov <
>> >>> >>>>> sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com
>> >>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> I would say, that my issue is not a regression and
>> therefore
>> >>> >>>>>>> should be
>> >>> >>>>> not
>> >>> >>>>>> a blocker.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> There might be a regression like: "new setting caused
>> >>> activating
>> >>> >>>> kerning
>> >>> >>>>>> for texts smaller than 10K" (or whatever is the default).
>> >>> >>>>>> So if previously the kerning was always disabled, the new
>> >>> option
>> >>> >>>>>> might
>> >>> >>>>>> unexpectedly activate it.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> My assumption was that "it should not hurt since the text
>> >>> is only
>> >>> >>>>>> 10K",
>> >>> >>>>>> however, in reality, it looks like even short texts cause
>> >>> slowness
>> >>> >>>>>> for the old JDK.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> So I'm inclined to make the default 0 (always disable
>> >>> kerning in
>> >>> >>>> response
>> >>> >>>>>> text areas) for Java <17.
>> >>> >>>>>> WDYT?
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> Vladimir
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> --
>> >>> >>>>> Cordialement
>> >>> >>>>> Philippe M.
>> >>> >>>>> Ubik-Ingenierie
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Cordialement.
>> >>> Philippe Mouawad.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Cordialement.
> Philippe Mouawad.
>
>
>
--
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.