On Saturday, February 27, 2016, sebb <[email protected]> wrote:

> There are still more fixes to be applied; looks like some unit tests
> were 'fixed' to avoid test failures.


i don't think so, they are due to cookie new rfc.

Please point to the one you think I "badly fixed"

>
> On 27 February 2016 at 10:23, Philippe Mouawad
> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > Thanks for the fix
> > Works fine for me
> >
> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016, sebb <[email protected] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 27 February 2016 at 00:13, Philippe Mouawad
> >> <[email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, February 27, 2016, sebb <[email protected] <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 26 February 2016 at 18:44, Philippe Mouawad
> >> >> <[email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> >> > On Friday, February 26, 2016, sebb <[email protected]
> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 25 February 2016 at 23:59, sebb <[email protected]
> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > On 25 February 2016 at 22:36, Philippe Mouawad
> >> >> >> > <[email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> 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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On reflection, although that works for new test plans it breaks
> >> >> >> compatibility, as it changes the meaning of the original JMX
> files.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Once a default is established for the JMX, it should never be
> changed
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That's impossible sebb, take this particular case, Hc4 based cookie
> >> >> handler
> >> >> > is the new default with a policy that didn't exist in jmeter2.13.
> >> >>
> >> >> This just means that the new settings must be correctly stored when
> >> >> the test element is added to the plan.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Also sometimes you make a bad choice on default and not being able
> to
> >> >> > change it is a problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> What we are talking about here is the default meaning for the JMX
> file
> >> >> if the setting is not defined in the file.
> >> >> This must not be changed once established.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But this does not mean that we cannot change the default for *new*
> >> >> >> test elements.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes but here cookiemanager is not a new element.
> >> >>
> >> >> I mean a new element in a Test Plan - i.e. right-click and "add
> >> >> cookiemanager".
> >> >>
> >> >> The GUI can be created with whatever defaults are thought sensible.
> >> >>
> >> >> If any field values match the JMX default, they will not be stored,
> >> >> but if different they will be stored.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That is easy to do - just change the GUI code to use a different
> >> >> >> default for the GUI field.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [Often the default is just the empty string, so it's perhaps not
> >> >> >> obvious that it is the default.]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Second question, how can we fix this issue ?
> >> >> >> >> upgrade.properties used by NameUpdater does some upgrade but
> not
> >> on
> >> >> >> default
> >> >> >> >> values.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I suppose that would be a way to change the JMX defaults, but it
> >> would
> >> >> >> mean more code/testing/maintenance merely to reduce the JMX size.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What shall we do here ?
> >> >> > Inform users that they need to update the policy of cookiemanager
> >> after
> >> >> > upgrading to 3.0 ?
> >> >>
> >> >> If a user creates a Test Plan with policy X, then it should remain
> >> >> policy X when it is reloaded in future versions of JMeter.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > it's precisely the problem.
> >> > Try it:
> >> > Create test plan with cookie manager having defaults of jmeter 2.13,
> >> change
> >> > policy to something different.
> >> >
> >> > Open the plan with 3.0, as the default implementation (hc3) was not
> saved
> >> > in xml, 3.0 thinks it's the new default and sets policy to  hc4
> breaking
> >> > the plan .
> >>
> >> Yes, that's exactly the problem that occurs when you change the
> >> DEFAULT values used in the set/get Property methods used to interface
> >> with the JMX settings.
> >> If you revert back to the original values, the problem disappears.
> >>
> >> Changing the GUI default needs to be done in the GUI.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> However when they create a new Test Plan, or add elements to an
> >> >> existing plan, then we *can* change the default in the GUI.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > As above.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> >> >> Regards
> >> >> >> >> Philippe M.
> >> >> >> >> @philmdot
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Cordialement.
> >> >> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Cordialement.
> >> > Philippe Mouawad.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
>


-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

Reply via email to