Jenkins build is back to normal : JMeter-trunk #6435

2017-11-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
See

Build failed in Jenkins: JMeter-trunk #6434

2017-11-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
See 


Changes:

[pmouawad] Bug 61731 - Enhance Test plan Backup with option to save before run
Add property to jmeter.properties
Bugzilla Id: 61731

[pmouawad] Bug 61731 - Enhance Test plan Backup with option to save before run
Fix test failure in headless mode
Bugzilla Id: 61731

[pmouawad] Bug 61739 - Java Request / JavaSamplerClient : Improve 
JavaSamplerContext 
Bugzilla Id: 61739

--
[...truncated 313.41 KB...]
[sonar:sonar] Sensor SurefireSensor (done) | time=0ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoSensor
[sonar:sonar] Analysing 

[sonar:sonar] No information about coverage per test.
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoSensor (done) | time=261ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor
[sonar:sonar] JaCoCoItSensor: JaCoCo IT report not found: 

[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoItSensor (done) | time=1ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoOverallSensor
[sonar:sonar] Analysing 

[sonar:sonar] Analysing 

[sonar:sonar] No information about coverage per test.
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JaCoCoOverallSensor (done) | time=262ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor XmlFileSensor
[sonar:sonar] Sensor XmlFileSensor (done) | time=0ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Zero Coverage Sensor
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Zero Coverage Sensor (done) | time=2ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Code Colorizer Sensor
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Code Colorizer Sensor (done) | time=0ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor CPD Block Indexer
[sonar:sonar] JavaCpdBlockIndexer is used for java
[sonar:sonar] Sensor CPD Block Indexer (done) | time=13ms
[sonar:sonar] -  Scan jms
[sonar:sonar] Language is forced to java
[sonar:sonar] Excluded sources for coverage: 
[sonar:sonar]   **/BSF*.java
[sonar:sonar]   **/org/apache/log/**.java
[sonar:sonar]   **/org/apache/jmeter/examples/**.java
[sonar:sonar]   **/org/apache/jorphan/logging/**.java
[sonar:sonar] Base dir: 
[sonar:sonar] Working dir: 

[sonar:sonar] Source paths: src/protocol/jms
[sonar:sonar] Source encoding: ISO-8859-1, default locale: en_US
[sonar:sonar] Index files
[sonar:sonar] 29 files indexed
[sonar:sonar] Quality profile for java: Sonar way
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Lines Sensor
[sonar:sonar] Sensor Lines Sensor (done) | time=1ms
[sonar:sonar] Sensor JavaSquidSensor
[sonar:sonar] Configured Java source version (sonar.java.source): none
[sonar:sonar] JavaClasspath initialization
[sonar:sonar] JavaClasspath initialization (done) | time=2ms
[sonar:sonar] JavaTestClasspath initialization
[sonar:sonar] JavaTestClasspath initialization (done) | time=3ms
[sonar:sonar] Java Main Files AST scan
[sonar:sonar] 29 source files to be analyzed
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nullable
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.CheckForNull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnull
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.Nonnegative
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.annotation.concurrent.ThreadSafe
[sonar:sonar] Class not found: javax.ann

buildbot success in on jmeter-trunk

2017-11-08 Thread buildbot 
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder jmeter-trunk while 
building . Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/jmeter-trunk/builds/3152

Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/

Buildslave for this Build: bb_slave1_ubuntu

Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-jmeter-commit' 
triggered this build
Build Source Stamp: [branch jmeter/trunk] 1814647
Blamelist: pmouawad

Build succeeded!

Sincerely,
 -The Buildbot

Build failed in Jenkins: JMeter-trunk #6433

2017-11-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
See 


Changes:

[pmouawad] Bug 61738 - Function Helper Dialog : Add Copy in Generate and 
clarify labels
Bugzilla Id: 61738

[pmouawad] Extracted method and used streams to improve readability
This closes #323
Contributed by Graham Russell

[pmouawad] General JavaDoc cleanup
Contributed by Graham Russell
This closes #322

[pmouawad] Bug 61731 - Enhance Test plan Backup with option to save before run
Oups forgot 1 file
Bugzilla Id: 61731

[pmouawad] Bug 61731 - Enhance Test plan Backup with option to save before run
Add documentation in properties and mention breaking change
Bugzilla Id: 61731

[pmouawad] Bug 61731 - Enhance Test plan Backup with option to save before run
Bugzilla Id: 61731

--
[...truncated 497.36 KB...]
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.processor.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.report.config...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.report.core...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.report.dashboard...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.report.processor...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.report.processor.graph...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.report.processor.graph.impl...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.reporters...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.reporters.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.samplers...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.samplers.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.save...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.save.converters...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.services...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.swing...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.testbeans...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.testbeans.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.testelement...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.testelement.property...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.threads...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.threads.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.timers...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.timers.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.util...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.util.keystore...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.visualizers...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.visualizers.backend...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.visualizers.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.extractor...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.extractor.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.extractor.json.jsonpath...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.extractor.json.jsonpath.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.extractor.json.render...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.modifiers...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.modifiers.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.sampler...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.sampler.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.thinktime...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package org.apache.jmeter.validation...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.visualizers.backend.graphite...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.visualizers.backend.influxdb...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.visualizers.utils...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.config...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.config.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.control...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.control.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.modifier...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.modifier.gui...
  [javadoc] Loading source files for package 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.http.parser...
  [javadoc] Loading source files fo

buildbot failure in on jmeter-trunk

2017-11-08 Thread buildbot 
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder jmeter-trunk while building 
. Full details are available at:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/jmeter-trunk/builds/3147

Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/

Buildslave for this Build: bb_slave1_ubuntu

Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler scheduler named 'on-jmeter-commit' 
triggered this build
Build Source Stamp: [branch jmeter/trunk] 1814637
Blamelist: pmouawad

BUILD FAILED: failed shell_3

Sincerely,
 -The Buildbot

[GitHub] jmeter pull request #323: Extracted method and used streams to improve reada...

2017-11-08 Thread asfgit 
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/323


---

[GitHub] jmeter pull request #322: General JavaDoc cleanup

2017-11-08 Thread asfgit 
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:

https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/322


---

Jenkins build is back to normal : JMeter Ubuntu #254

2017-11-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
See

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread Philippe Mouawad 
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  wrote:

> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
> > 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 >
> > 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
> >>
> >>  >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >> Без
> >> вирусов. www.avast.ru
> >>  >> 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  
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > Great !
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko  
> >> > 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  
> >> > 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  
> >> > >  :
> >> > > 
> >> > > > 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 
> >
> > UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER 
>


-- 
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread sebb 
On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad
 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 
> 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
>>
>> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> Без
>> вирусов. www.avast.ru
>> > 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 
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Great !
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko > > 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 > > 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 
>> > >  :
>> > > 
>> > > > 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 
>
> UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread Philippe Mouawad 
Hello,
I’d say Test Plan.
I suggest testcompiler ignores them

Regards

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Artem Fedorov 
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
>
>  source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Без
> вирусов. www.avast.ru
>  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 
> > wrote:
>
> > Great !
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko  > 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  > 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 
> > >  :
> > > 
> > > > 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 

UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread Artem Fedorov 
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


Без
вирусов. www.avast.ru

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Philippe Mouawad  wrote:

> Great !
>
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko  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  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
> >  :
> > 
> > > 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.
>

Build failed in Jenkins: JMeter Ubuntu #253

2017-11-08 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
See 


Changes:

[pmouawad] Formatting

--
[...truncated 512.95 KB...]
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:
   [jmeter] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an 
explanation.
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type 
[org.apache.logging.slf4j.Log4jLoggerFactory]
   [jmeter] Creating summariser 
   [jmeter] Created the tree successfully using testfiles/TestCookieManager.jmx
   [jmeter] Starting the test @ Wed Nov 08 14:16:31 UTC 2017 (1510150591509)
   [jmeter] Waiting for possible Shutdown/StopTestNow/Heapdump message on port 
4445
   [jmeter] summary +  1 in 00:00:00 =3.1/s Avg:   310 Min:   310 Max:  
 310 Err: 0 (0.00%) Active: 1 Started: 1 Finished: 0
   [jmeter] summary +  9 in 00:00:00 =   19.8/s Avg:32 Min: 1 Max:  
 187 Err: 0 (0.00%) Active: 0 Started: 1 Finished: 1
   [jmeter] summary = 10 in 00:00:01 =   12.8/s Avg:60 Min: 1 Max:  
 310 Err: 0 (0.00%)
   [jmeter] Tidying up ...@ Wed Nov 08 14:16:32 UTC 2017 (1510150592993)
   [jmeter] ... end of run
 [echo] TestCookieManager output files compared OK

batchtest:
 [echo] Starting TCP_TESTS with file TCP_TESTS.jmx using -X -Jdummy=dummy
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Found binding in 
[jar:
   [jmeter] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings for an 
explanation.
   [jmeter] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type 
[org.apache.logging.slf4j.Log4jLoggerFactory]
   [jmeter] Creating summariser 
   [jmeter] Created the tree successfully using testfiles/TCP_TESTS.jmx
   [jmeter] Starting the test @ Wed Nov 08 14:16:36 UTC 2017 (1510150596144)
   [jmeter] Waiting for possible Shutdown/StopTestNow/Heapdump message on port 
4445
   [jmeter] 08/11/2017 14:16:39
   [jmeter] 
   [jmeter] 
   [jmeter] summary = 11 in 00:00:05 =2.2/s Avg:   322 Min: 0 Max:  
1011 Err: 0 (0.00%)
   [jmeter] Tidying up ...@ Wed Nov 08 14:16:41 UTC 2017 (1510150601755)
   [jmeter] ... end of run
   [concat] 2017-11-08 14:16:39,697 ERROR o.a.j.p.t.s.TCPSampler: 
   [concat] org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.ReadException: Error reading 
from server, bytes read: 0
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.TCPClientImpl.read(TCPClientImpl.java:131)
 ~[ApacheJMeter_tcp.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.TCPSampler.sample(TCPSampler.java:402) 
[ApacheJMeter_tcp.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.threads.JMeterThread.executeSamplePackage(JMeterThread.java:498)
 [ApacheJMeter_core.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.threads.JMeterThread.processSampler(JMeterThread.java:424) 
[ApacheJMeter_core.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.threads.JMeterThread.run(JMeterThread.java:255) 
[ApacheJMeter_core.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) [?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] Caused by: java.net.SocketTimeoutException: Read timed out
   [concat] at java.net.SocketInputStream.socketRead0(Native Method) 
~[?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] at 
java.net.SocketInputStream.socketRead(SocketInputStream.java:116) ~[?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:171) 
~[?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:141) 
~[?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] at java.net.SocketInputStream.read(SocketInputStream.java:127) 
~[?:1.8.0_152]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.TCPClientImpl.read(TCPClientImpl.java:114)
 ~[ApacheJMeter_tcp.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] ... 5 more
   [concat] 2017-11-08 14:16:40,749 ERROR o.a.j.p.t.s.TCPSampler: 
   [concat] org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.ReadException: 
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.BinaryTCPClientImpl.read(BinaryTCPClientImpl.java:152)
 ~[ApacheJMeter_tcp.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.protocol.tcp.sampler.TCPSampler.sample(TCPSampler.java:402) 
[ApacheJMeter_tcp.jar:3.4-SNAPSHOT r1814578]
   [concat] at 
org.apache.jmeter.threads.JMete

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread Philippe Mouawad 
Great !

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko  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  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
>  :
> 
> > 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.

Re: Workbench : Let's drop it ?

2017-11-08 Thread Andrey Pokhilko 
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  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 >>> :

> 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
>

Having Maven javadoc and source artifact deployed to maven

2017-11-08 Thread Philippe Mouawad 
Hello,
If there is a volunteer to implement this feature, it would be great:

   - https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56368

It's about creating in Ant build.xml the zips for each bundle for javadocs
and sources.

It is really useful when users want to develop with JMeter.
-- 
Regards.
Philippe

[GitHub] jmeter issue #323: Extracted method and used streams to improve readability

2017-11-08 Thread codecov-io 
Github user codecov-io commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/323
  
# [Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=h1) 
Report
> Merging 
[#323](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=desc) into 
[trunk](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/commit/60def2e88b5e549f2827438b4f839545a0666372?src=pr&el=desc)
 will **decrease** coverage by `<.01%`.
> The diff coverage is `0%`.

[![Impacted file tree 
graph](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323/graphs/tree.svg?height=150&width=650&token=6Q7CI1wFSh&src=pr)](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=tree)

```diff
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## trunk #323  +/-   ##
===
- Coverage 57.7%   57.69%   -0.01% 
+ Complexity9894 9893   -1 
===
  Files 1137 1137  
  Lines7295772957  
  Branches  7305 7303   -2 
===
- Hits 4209742096   -1 
+ Misses   2839028389   -1 
- Partials  2470 2472   +2
```


| [Impacted 
Files](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=tree) | Coverage 
Δ | Complexity Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 
[src/core/org/apache/jmeter/gui/action/Save.java](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=tree#diff-c3JjL2NvcmUvb3JnL2FwYWNoZS9qbWV0ZXIvZ3VpL2FjdGlvbi9TYXZlLmphdmE=)
 | `13.17% <0%> (ø)` | `4 <0> (ø)` | :arrow_down: |
| 
[...c/core/org/apache/jmeter/reporters/Summariser.java](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=tree#diff-c3JjL2NvcmUvb3JnL2FwYWNoZS9qbWV0ZXIvcmVwb3J0ZXJzL1N1bW1hcmlzZXIuamF2YQ==)
 | `84.61% <0%> (-0.77%)` | `17% <0%> (-1%)` | |
| 
[...apache/jmeter/extractor/TestBoundaryExtractor.java](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=tree#diff-dGVzdC9zcmMvb3JnL2FwYWNoZS9qbWV0ZXIvZXh0cmFjdG9yL1Rlc3RCb3VuZGFyeUV4dHJhY3Rvci5qYXZh)
 | `97.88% <0%> (ø)` | `17% <0%> (ø)` | :arrow_down: |

--

[Continue to review full report at 
Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=continue).
> **Legend** - [Click here to learn 
more](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/codecov-delta)
> `Δ = absolute  (impact)`, `ø = not affected`, `? = missing 
data`
> Powered by 
[Codecov](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=footer). Last 
update 
[60def2e...b9da250](https://codecov.io/gh/apache/jmeter/pull/323?src=pr&el=lastupdated).
 Read the [comment docs](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/pull-request-comments).



---

[GitHub] jmeter pull request #323: Extracted method and used streams to improve reada...

2017-11-08 Thread ham1 
GitHub user ham1 opened a pull request:

https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/323

Extracted method and used streams to improve readability



You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:

$ git pull https://github.com/ham1/jmeter save_refactor

Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:

https://github.com/apache/jmeter/pull/323.patch

To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:

This closes #323






---