I use the workbench for recording. I propose to add recording information to documentation about workbench. I propose to rename workbench to "temporary elements"
-0 El 12 nov. 2017 1:33 p. m., "Felix Schumacher" < felix.schumac...@internetallee.de> escribió: Am 10. November 2017 16:07:39 MEZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad < philippe.moua...@gmail.com>: >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 ? I only use the workbench for the recorder and the mirror server. If I can place them somewhere else, I personally would be fine with removal of workbench. But I understand sebb's concerns. So it is a weak +1 from me. Felix > > > >Thanks > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru> 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 >> > <philippe.moua...@gmail.com> 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 <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad >> >>> <p.moua...@ubik-ingenierie.com <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 < >> >>> artem.fedo...@blazemeter.com <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 < >> >>>>> philippe.moua...@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> Great ! >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <a...@ya.ru >> >>> <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 <a...@ya.ru >> >>> <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 < >> >>>>>>> philippe.moua...@gmail.com <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. >> >>
