Ok, Get current trunk. Create with a 2.13 a Test plan that contains CookieManager with default values Open it with current trunk, you will see that default values change.
I think this is due to the problem I am explaining here. Regards On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 1:12 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 February 2016 at 00:10, Philippe Mouawad > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:59 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 25 February 2016 at 22:36, Philippe Mouawad > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > In JMeter we usually manage properties this way: > >> > public String getImplementation() { > >> > return getPropertyAsString(IMPLEMENTATION, DEFAULT_POLICY); > >> > } > >> > > >> > public void setImplementation(String implementation){ > >> > setProperty(IMPLEMENTATION, implementation, DEFAULT_POLICY); > >> > } > >> > > >> > > >> > setProperty will not save in JMX the value if it is equal to > >> DEFAULT_POLICY. > >> > This is good for the size of JMX but it's an issue for migration when > we > >> > change default values in N+1 and load the JMX plan in this new plan. > >> > > >> > You can see an illustration through : > >> > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58756#c2 > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > The issue is that when reading a 2.13 saved JMX from a 3.0, as default > >> have > >> > changed, the default values are not in JMX file so we end up > initializing > >> > different values. > >> > > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > So I think we should abandon this practice in favor of explicit > defaults. > >> > >> That is not necessary. > >> > >> If a default changes, just drop the default from the setProperty call. > >> The value will then always be saved. > >> > >> I don't understand. I am aware that it will not be saved but I don't see > > how I can fix the issue on upgrade. > > In that case I don't understand what the issue is. > > Please explain with an example. > > > > >> > Second question, how can we fix this issue ? > >> > upgrade.properties used by NameUpdater does some upgrade but not on > >> default > >> > values. > >> > >> As above. > >> > > I don't understand. I don't see how I can fix the issue on upgrade. > > See above. > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks > >> > Regards > >> > Philippe M. > >> > @philmdot > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cordialement. > > Philippe Mouawad. > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
