They differ because in Test Action case, there is a sleep which is taken as processing of Sampler. While with my strategy the timer being a child of DebugSampler it will act as TestAction but as time is within a timer it will not affect time taken by DebugSampler. Make the test sebb you will see.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:26 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 March 2014 21:53, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Shmuel Krakower <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Regarding the timer just put it under A Test Action which is already > hidden > >> from results... > >> > > > > No it is not the same, because I usually use a Transaction Controller > and > > have HTTP Sampler as its children . > > Using Test Action will make Transaction Sampler report time taken by HTTP > > Sampler + Test Action which I don't want. > > While using Timer will give correct time. > > The Debug Sampler is a sampler, the same as the Test Action sampler. > So I don't see how they differ when used under a TC. > Note that the Test Action controller itself does not have to wait. > > >> > >> www.beatsoo.org - free application performance monitoring from world > wide > >> locations. > >> On Mar 25, 2014 11:38 PM, "Philippe Mouawad" < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On 25 March 2014 21:27, Philippe Mouawad < > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:05 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> On 25 March 2014 07:42, Shmuel Krakower <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Maybe we can go with simple approach of adding a boolean data > >> member > >> > > to > >> > > >> the > >> > > >> > sampler base class of Hidden and all listeners add a piece of > code > >> > to > >> > > >> > ignore those who are marked hidden? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> The boolean would have to be added to the SampleEvent / > SampleResult > >> > > >> class, as Listeners only operate on them. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> It would be possible to check this flag before invoking the file > >> > output > >> > > >> section. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> However the sample would still be sent to all Listener GUIs, even > >> ones > >> > > >> that operate on "real" data, such as the Summariser. > >> > > >> Yes, one could amend all of these as well to reject "debug" data, > >> but > >> > > >> what about all the 3rd party code? > >> > > >> > >> > > >> It has long been a fundamental design feature of JMeter that all > >> > > >> results go to all Listeners in scope, and all results are sent > >> equally > >> > > >> to file and GUI. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> I think changing this strategy is extremely risky, and will > likely > >> > > >> cause more problems than the minor issue it is proposed to solve. > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > I think there is a misunderstanding. > >> > > > I was just proposing to change DebugSampler#sample(Entry e) like > >> this: > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > if(silent_mode) { > >> > > > return null; > >> > > > } > >> > > > // Otherwise current code still applies > >> > > > ... > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Where silent_mode is a boolean configured from a new property: > >> > > > # Flag to enable silent mode which leads to > >> > > > # debug_samplers doing nothing > >> > > > #debug_sampler_silent_mode=false > >> > > > >> > > How does that differ from disabling the Debug Sampler? > >> > > > >> > > >> > Well in my case, as I said I put Timer as a child of Debug Sampler > (DS) > >> so > >> > with this change, I get no DS in output but get the right pause times. > >> > The other benefit is that in GUI mode/ During debug of script I will > put > >> > flag to true and during load test to false. > >> > > >> > So it really answers my need. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > www.beatsoo.org - free application performance monitoring from > >> > world > >> > > >> wide > >> > > >> > locations. > >> > > >> > On Mar 25, 2014 1:46 AM, "sebb" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> On 24 March 2014 20:16, Philippe Mouawad < > >> > [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:46 PM, sebb <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> There is already a way to drop sampler output from the > >> results - > >> > > just > >> > > >> >> >> return null. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> This is what the Test Sampler does. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> At present it does not look like the scripting samplers can > >> > return > >> > > >> null. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> The Debug Sampler displays its results via the Listeners, > so > >> > it's > >> > > not > >> > > >> >> >> possible to use this mechanism to suppress Debug Sampler > >> output. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> Would it make sense to add a property making Debug Sampler > >> > return > >> > > >> null ? > >> > > >> >> > #debug_sampler.silente_mode=false > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Yes, but the debug sampler would then do nothing. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> However, I'm not sure it makes sense to special case the > >> > Listener > >> > > >> >> >> processing so that some samples get displayed but don't get > >> > saved. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> > In that case what do you propose ? > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> Not sure. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> On 23 March 2014 14:35, Philippe Mouawad < > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> > Hello, > >> > > >> >> >> > I agree , this would be even better. I have the same > >> > requirement > >> > > >> for > >> > > >> >> >> JSR223 > >> > > >> >> >> > Samplers. > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > Regards > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Shmuel Krakower < > >> > > >> [email protected]> > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> I would suggest to allow ignoring any sampler if user > >> chooses > >> > > it. > >> > > >> >> >> >> For example I use beanshell samplers which I mostly > don't > >> > wanna > >> > > >> >> see... > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> But this may get your implementation comlex... > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> www.beatsoo.org - free application performance > monitoring > >> > from > >> > > >> world > >> > > >> >> >> wide > >> > > >> >> >> >> locations. > >> > > >> >> >> >> On Mar 23, 2014 4:27 PM, "Philippe Mouawad" < > >> > > >> >> [email protected] > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> > Hello, > >> > > >> >> >> >> > What do you think about the following enhancement: > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > - Be able through a new property to not output > DEBUG > >> > > Sampler > >> > > >> >> >> results > >> > > >> >> >> >> in > >> > > >> >> >> >> > ResultCollector > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > Why: > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > - Because Debug Sampler might affect throughput > >> results > >> > > and > >> > > >> >> error > >> > > >> >> >> rate > >> > > >> >> >> >> > positively > >> > > >> >> >> >> > - I use Debug Sampler to have a more readable pause > >> time > >> > > in > >> > > >> Test > >> > > >> >> >> Plan, > >> > > >> >> >> >> > usually when pause time are not the same between > >> samples > >> > > (I > >> > > >> put > >> > > >> >> >> Timer > >> > > >> >> >> >> > as a > >> > > >> >> >> >> > child of Debug Sampler (all properties to false) > >> > > >> >> >> >> > - Because it is DEBUG, why would you need it in > final > >> > > >> results ? > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > -- > >> > > >> >> >> >> > Regards. > >> > > >> >> >> >> > Philippe > >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > -- > >> > > >> >> >> > Cordialement. > >> > > >> >> >> > Philippe Mouawad. > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > -- > >> > > >> >> > Cordialement. > >> > > >> >> > Philippe Mouawad. > >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Cordialement. > >> > > > Philippe Mouawad. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Cordialement. > >> > Philippe Mouawad. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Cordialement. > > Philippe Mouawad. > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
