On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > I’d say Test Plan. > I suggest testcompiler ignores them
That would involve a lot of testing to ensure nothing broke. Are you sure it's worth it? There have been other instances where what seems to be a minor change turns out to be far more intrusive than first expected. Dropping Workbench seems like such a case to me; it's been part of JMeter for so long that there are bound to be lots of places that assume it is present. I agree that the Workbench is a bit of an oddity, but I think removing it is going to prove much more of a headache than improving the documentation to explain it better. And potentially find more uses for it. > Regards > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, Artem Fedorov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> If we dropped WorkBench, in which element we can add Non-Test Elements >> (HTTP Mirror Server, HTTP(S) Test Script Recorder, Property Display)? >> Can we add these Non-Test Elements to Test Plan (root) or Test Fragment? >> >> Thanks >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> Без >> вирусов. www.avast.ru >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_ >> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Philippe Mouawad < >> [email protected] <javascript:;> >> > wrote: >> >> > Great ! >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > >> > > FYI BlazeMeter will attempt to implement this change and contribute it. >> > > >> > > Andrey Pokhilko >> > > >> > > 04.11.2017 17:06, Andrey Pokhilko пишет: >> > > > I'll need to think about it. >> > > > >> > > > Andrey Pokhilko >> > > > >> > > > 04.11.2017 17:01, Philippe Mouawad пишет: >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> +1 from me, I think it is possible to automatically move elements >> > from >> > > >>> loaded test plans. >> > > >>> >> > > >> Do you have some time to contribute a patch for this if you think >> it's >> > > >> needed ? >> > > >> >> > > >>> Andrey Pokhilko >> > > >>> >> > > >>> 04.11.2017 15:18, Maxime Chassagneux пишет: >> > > >>>> Hi, >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> I never use it, except for recording script, so +1 for me. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> Regards >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> 2017-11-04 13:07 GMT+01:00 Philippe Mouawad < >> > > [email protected] <javascript:;> >> > > >>>> : >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> Hello, >> > > >>>>> Workbench element is confusing for beginners who don't understand >> > > >>>>> clearly its use. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Thinking more about it, I don't see today why we should still >> keep >> > > it. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The only advantage of this element is Non Test Elements which >> would >> > > >>>>> be made available from Test Plan directly. >> > > >>>>> When running a test those element would not impact test plan. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> The only issue is backward compatibility, should we try to move >> > > >>> elements in >> > > >>>>> workbench under test plan or just mention a backward >> > incompatibility. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Users would manually move there elements to Test Plan. >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> Regards >> > > >>>>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cordialement. >> > Philippe Mouawad. >> > >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. > Ubik-Ingénierie > > UBIK LOAD PACK Web Site <http://www.ubikloadpack.com/> > > UBIK LOAD PACK on TWITTER <https://twitter.com/ubikloadpack>
