Hello, PR merged this evening, I am happy with the change as I feel we removed a lot of weird conditional codes.
Good by Workbench ! We won't miss you :-) Thanks for the PR, merged with little modifications to avoid meaning less popup menus. I feel we should find a better name to "Non Test Elements": - it's negative - it's meaningless, it says what they are not, but not what they are Proposals: - Test Building Elements - Debug Elements Regards Philippe M. On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Artem Fedorov <artem.fedo...@blazemeter.com > wrote: > 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 <rar...@gmail.com> 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" < > > 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. > > >> > > >> > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
