Why not consider how to make the Workbench more intuitive and useful?
On 8 November 2017 at 16:47, Philippe Mouawad <[email protected]> wrote: > As you say, it’s oddity. > A tool should be intuitive, this part is not, we cannot always say, rtfm. > You know that lot of people don’t read docs. > > Let’s try and see if it is that complex. > > We shouldn’t say , we cannot touch, JMeter is not legacy, so we touch , > break then fix . > > Regards > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2017, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8 November 2017 at 16:18, Philippe Mouawad >> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> 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] <javascript:;>> >> > 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:;> <javascript:;> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > Great ! >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected] >> <javascript:;> >> >> <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:;> >> >> <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:;> <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> >> > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad.
