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 > <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad >>> <[email protected] <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 < >>> [email protected] <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 < >>>>> [email protected] <javascript:;> <javascript:;> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Great ! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >>> <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 <[email protected] >>> <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 < >>>>>>> [email protected] <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.
