On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:02 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18 March 2016 at 21:46, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Sebb opened a bug 59173 reporting a problem of "spurious" save message > when > > 4 elements are selected. > > > > > > I fixed 1/4 of these. > > The problem is that fixing the 3/4 other "issues" is if not impossible > not > > simple at all: > > > > 1/ Access Log Sampler: > > > > AFAIU (but I may not understand well) , nothing seems to be available > > for this case when using > > XXXXBeanInfo > > True, but it could be added fairly easily. > Great news. So can you add it or explain it to me ?
> > > > > 2/ JMS Publisher: > > > > There was a mistake made in previous release (my fault) when adding 2 > > properties. > > > > Fixing the bug makes code ugly. I personally prefer the spurious > > message vs the ugly code. > > Yes, but you are a developer who understands why this message occurs. > > I am too, but I still find it very disconcerting when I'm told my test > plan has been changed without having done anything. > > I tried to find a clean fix, I didn't. > > > > > > 3/ Backend Listener : > > - A new parameter was added , AFAIK (but I may be wrong) we have > > nothing currently to handle this case. But it does not hurt me, as > > JMeter 3.0 adds a new parameter, the test plan really changed. > > But this is precisely the issue. > The test plan from 2.13 behaves exactly the same in 3.0 (if not, > there's another bug). > The new parameter defaults to false, so if it is missing the test > behaves as before. > > > - This informs indirectly the user of this new property. > > But the new property does not change the test unless it is changed > from the default, so it's really not helpful. > > Imagine if your favourite word processor behaved like this. > > You write a document and save it. > Later on you open it in a new version of the program; you don't make > any changes. > Yet when you close the document the word processor asks you to save it. > That would be very disconcerting. > You would wonder if you had changed anything by mistake. > It's true. But we can add it as a known issue and fix it in next release. > > > > > For 1/ and 3/, maybe we can implement it in a future release but I > > don't think it should be blocker for the 3.0 release. > > We have either got to do it now or not at all. > Otherwise we have the same issue for plans created in 3.0. > No as we would have fixed it in 3.1. > > > > > Regards > > Philippe > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
