If we look at consensus, we have: - 3 (+1) to remove it (Maxime, Antonio and me) with favor to move the elements inside Test plan as disabled (so backward compat). If we have a PR or patch that does that, I'll merge it after testing as much as possible. - 1 (-1) or (0) for sebb, do you agree sebb ? what would be your exact position ?
@Felix, @Milamber, @Vladimir,@Graham, @Mikhail , any thoughts on this ? Thanks On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Andrey Pokhilko <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see any point for Workbench to exist. Simply disabling elements > in-place makes them temporary stored anywhere in test plan. > > Do we have a decision to remote it or not? I don't want to spend > resources if we don't have consensus. > > Andrey Pokhilko > > 09.11.2017 13:41, sebb пишет: > > 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. > > -- Cordialement. Philippe Mouawad.
