Hello, I submitted: https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/709
Regards On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 9:52 AM Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > I updated ticket. > > I don't promise I'll have time to revert commit, but I'll try this > week-end. > > Thanks > Regards > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:21 PM Bruno DEMION <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Philippe, >> >> I don't reproduce the issue of bug 65885 on JMeter 5.3/5.4.2 (i ask a >> simple test case on bugzilla) >> >> Can you revert the commit? we can try to fix the issue before a new RC >> if we can find the solve in few days. >> >> Milamber >> >> On 28/04/2022 08:47, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >> > Hello, >> > I don't have a fix for now , I didn't look deeply but for now as we >> don't >> > have in CSV file the fact the "Ignore status" is set, I don't see how to >> > fix it. >> > Since it's a regression, I think we need to revert the change if nobody >> has >> > an idea, and start a new release. >> > >> > What do you think ? >> > >> > Regards >> > Philippe >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:44 AM Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Philippe, >> >> >> >> Need to cancel RC2 for have a fix (or a rollback)? or i continue with >> >> the RC process? >> >> >> >> Milamber >> >> >> >> On 27/04/2022 11:23, Philippe Mouawad wrote: >> >>> Hello, >> >>> Sorry for late reply @Milamber <mailto:[email protected]> , I >> >>> see you're releasing. >> >>> I noticed a regression on Reporting that may be problematic, in the >> >>> error tables, the assertion message takes precedence on error code >> >>> which makes analysis >> >>> more complex. >> >>> >> >>> It's a regression introduced by >> >>> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65885. >> >>> Only when ignore status is checked should this happen. >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:13 AM Milamber <[email protected] >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I will prepare the RC2 today >> >>> >> >>> Milamber >> >>> >> >>> On 23/04/2022 11:02, Felix Schumacher wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > What about trying an RC2 of JMeter 5.5? >> >>> > >> >>> > I updated our dependencies and added a workaround for the UI >> >>> problem. >> >>> > >> >>> > Felix >> >>> > >> >>> > Am 18.03.22 um 17:35 schrieb Milamber: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Ready for RC2? (I think that no?) >> >>> >> cc @Vladimir >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On 16/03/2022 22:42, UBIK LOAD PACK Support wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello, >> >>> >>> Looks good to me. >> >>> >>> Let's do another RC with this. >> >>> >>> Regards >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 6:30 PM Vladimir Sitnikov < >> >>> >>> [email protected] >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>>>> Could we make the setting java version dependant ? >> >>> >>>> By default, the setting would be commented in >> jmeter.properties. >> >>> >>>> Then, the code would use the appropriate default value >> >>> according to >> >>> >>>> Java >> >>> >>>> version. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> So I suggest changing >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> https://github.com/apache/jmeter/blob/53a992c8179f0f64fe1993df34bda6594856cf5e/src/jorphan/src/main/java/org/apache/jorphan/gui/ui/KerningOptimizer.java#L48 >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> into something like maxLengthWithKerning = currentJava < 17 >> ? >> >>> -1 : >> >>> >>>> 10000; >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Vladimir >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> ср, 16 мар. 2022 г. в 20:25, Philippe Mouawad < >> >>> >>>> [email protected] >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >>> >>>>> : >> >>> >>>>> Could we make the setting java version dependant ? >> >>> >>>>> If it’s worth it as it will introduce additional config >> >>> complexity >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Regards >> >>> >>>>> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022, Vladimir Sitnikov < >> >>> >>>>> [email protected] >> >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >>> >>>>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> I would say, that my issue is not a regression and >> therefore >> >>> >>>>>>> should be >> >>> >>>>> not >> >>> >>>>>> a blocker. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> There might be a regression like: "new setting caused >> >>> activating >> >>> >>>> kerning >> >>> >>>>>> for texts smaller than 10K" (or whatever is the default). >> >>> >>>>>> So if previously the kerning was always disabled, the new >> >>> option >> >>> >>>>>> might >> >>> >>>>>> unexpectedly activate it. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> My assumption was that "it should not hurt since the text >> >>> is only >> >>> >>>>>> 10K", >> >>> >>>>>> however, in reality, it looks like even short texts cause >> >>> slowness >> >>> >>>>>> for the old JDK. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> So I'm inclined to make the default 0 (always disable >> >>> kerning in >> >>> >>>> response >> >>> >>>>>> text areas) for Java <17. >> >>> >>>>>> WDYT? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Vladimir >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> -- >> >>> >>>>> Cordialement >> >>> >>>>> Philippe M. >> >>> >>>>> Ubik-Ingenierie >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Cordialement. >> >>> Philippe Mouawad. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
