I attached patch in this bug: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Ralf Roeber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" < > [email protected]> escribió: > > > > Am 10. November 2017 16:07:39 MEZ schrieb Philippe Mouawad < > [email protected]>: > >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 <[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. > >> > >> >
