On Wednesday, March 26, 2014, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 March 2014 22:31, Philippe Mouawad > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > 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. > > But my aim was to control better pause time. So ok it answers other needs but not my main one.
> > 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. > > Set it to > 0 and you will see the difference > > 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 -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
