+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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > <[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. > > > > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. >
