>> I need to implement the following functions for my testplan:
>> 1. long __timestamp()
>> returns new Date().getTime()
s> ${__time()}
Oh, sorry. I thought it returns only string representation of time
using specified format. I omitted corresponding notes in the
documentation.
>> 2. long __timeDuration(String variableName)
>> returns new Date().getTime() - variables.get(variableName)
s> ${__intSum(${__time()},-${variableName})}
Thank you. I am always forgot about such this sort of notation like
-${variableName}
>> 3. boolean __isTimeoutExpaired(String variableName, long timeout)
>> returns true if __timeduration for variableName more than specified
>> timeout.
s> ${__javaScript(${variableName} > timeout)}
Yes, you are right, but I don't like to use __javaScript at all. When
I replaced my __javaScripts calculations to __BeanShell my test plan
works in several times faster. Maybe it is so only for calculations but
not for comparing operations.
In any case I agree with you it is not necessary function without
previous. Thank you.
>> It is useful for me to use them in operations with timeouts.
>> E.g.: For sending request to server while something is not received or
>> time is expired.
>>
>> It is possible to use javaScript or beanShell for this needs.
>> But it is not clear for me to read and work with this plan...
s> See above.
>> If community wants I can send you patches to commit.
s> Please don't e-mail patches - they should be provided via Bugzilla.
>> But I think Function.java interface involves code duplication in several
>> places, such as the following example for Varialble.java:
>>
>> public synchronized void setParameters(Collection parameters) throws
>> InvalidVariableException {
>> values = parameters.toArray();
>> if ((values.length < MIN_PARAMETER_COUNT) || (values.length >
>> MAX_PARAMETER_COUNT)) {
>> throw new InvalidVariableException("Parameter Count not between " +
>> MIN_PARAMETER_COUNT + " & "
>> + MAX_PARAMETER_COUNT);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I think it will be better to have:
>> protected int getMinParameterCount()
>> protected int getMaxParameterCount()
>>
>> and use them to verify parameters diapason and set it to values list for
>> all functions.
>> Also the following code construction is used 46 times for function
>> implementations:
>>
>> ((CompoundVariable) values[index]).execute()
>>
>> I think to extract this method to some utils
>> class in this package or to the AbstractFunction class, for example:
>>
>> protected (static?) String getParameter(Object obj)
>>
>> and so on...
>>
>> I understand that a lot of developers have own function implementation
>> based on Function API and it is not good to change this API but it is
>> possible to change AbstractFunction or add new super class extended from
>> AbstractFunction and use it for predefined functions.
s> Quite possibly...
What way do you prefer?
I suggest to change AbstractFunction at the beginning.
>> Just let me know if you want this refactoring too and I can do it. I
s> If you are keen to do it, I suggest you provide a patch for just one
s> of the functions so it can be reviewed before further work is done.
ok.
>> need to know your opinion for changing only my stuff or to refactor
>> all other functions too.
Thank you.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Kudrenko
ARDAS group (http://www.ardas.dp.ua)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
