Thanks for your advice, it is much better implementation I implemented it this way.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 October 2011 18:34, Philippe Mouawad > <p.moua...@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote: > > Hello Sebb, > > Do you agree with this proposition : > > > > - Add an Menu Option called "Run with timers disabled" > > I see - so it would only apply to GUI runs - that's reasonable. > > > - This option will set a boolean on GuiPackage#getinstance() called > > noTimersPause > > - Timers will consult this option to decide whether to run or not pause > > That would require changing all timers; what happens about 3rd party > timers? > See below for simpler option. > > > - At end of run option will be reset (what would be the best way to > > detect end, StandardJMeterEngine#run after waitThreadsStopped ?) > > > > The GUI Start code has to clone and traverse the tree before passing > it to the engine, so it could remove the Timers there. > Disabled elements are removed anyway, so it could alternatively > disable them if that was easier. > > Perhaps create a subclass of TreeCloner that skips Timers. > > No need to reset the option afterwards. > > > If you are Ok, I can implement it. > > > > Regards > > Philippe > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Philippe Mouawad < > > p.moua...@ubik-ingenierie.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello Sebb, > >> In my opinion this option would be useful only in Scripting Phase so > >> through GUI. > >> That's why I wanted it as a Menu Option or maybe "Run with timers > disabled" > >> . > >> > >> My implementation idea was to test in parent delay() method a check for > >> this option and return immediately if it is on. > >> > >> This would make it simple to implement and would not be persisted in > Test > >> Plan nor disabling of Timers would occur. > >> What do you think ? > >> > >> Regards > >> Philippe > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM, <bugzi...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52019 > >>> > >>> --- Comment #1 from Sebb <s...@apache.org> 2011-10-13 10:59:33 UTC --- > >>> Rather than a Menu item, perhaps it should be a Test Plan option, which > >>> would > >>> mean checking for it in the engine code. But I think it would be > simpler > >>> overall. > >>> > >>> If done via a Menu option, disabling is easy. > >>> > >>> However, I assume there would be a re-enable option - what about timers > >>> that > >>> were originally disabled? Seems wrong to enable those, so the code > would > >>> have > >>> to keep track of which Timers did not need re-enabling. > >>> > >>> What if the Test Plan were updated in the mean-time? How could one keep > >>> track > >>> of which Timers to re-enable? > >>> > >>> Using a Test Plan option would mean it would also work in non-GUI and > >>> client-server mode. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Configure bugmail: > >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > >>> ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > >>> You reported the bug. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Cordialement. > >> Philippe Mouawad. > >> Ubik-Ingénierie > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Cordialement. > > Philippe Mouawad. > > Ubik-Ingénierie > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@jakarta.apache.org > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
