On 25 March 2014 22:31, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > They differ because in Test Action case, there is a sleep which is taken > as processing of Sampler.
If you set the Test Action sleep to zero, it won't affect the TC output. > 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. I have, and I did not see a problem. > 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.
