Hi Alexander The problem with "number_prefix_url" is you have more than one trhead groupt in your script. You can sort by thread group
Antonio Le jeu. 23 mai 2019 à 21:53, Alexander Podelko <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Philippe, > Oops, it appears that I still need to work on my communication skills. It > is rather opposite to what I meant. > The number in the beginning are important for me - because, as far as I > understand, it is the only way to ensure that transaction/requests would be > ordered properly in all reports/listeners.[of course, we can create > transaction name / prefix with our number - then autonumeration doesn't > matter, but that is some additional efforts] > > 1) So my actual suggestion for prefixes was to change it > > from prefix_number_url (as in 5.1.1) > to number_prefix_url > to ensure proper sorting. > > 2) On transaction name, maybe we should make it consistent with "Apply > Naming Policy". If we want that way of naming for transaction reporting, > why not to do it during recording? > So (if we keep numbering in the beginning) transaction would be: > sequentialNumber_transactionName > and requests underneath transaction: > > > sequentialNumber_transactionName-0sequentialNumber_transactionName-1sequentialNumber_transactionName-2... > [somewhat reversing what I wrote below - while I am not sure that these > schema is optimal, at least it would be consistent with what we want it to > be for reporting] > > Or the idea to move sequential numbers to the end is to make it consistent > with that naming policy? > > Sorry for confusion. > > Thanks,Alex > > On Saturday, May 18, 2019, 2:59:03 PM EDT, Philippe Mouawad < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > Suggestion about number implemented in : > https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63450 > > Feel free to test it and give feedback using next nightly build. > Thanks > Regards > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:46 PM Alexander Podelko > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Thanks for the great feature - 'Recorder: Transaction Control' ! > > We have two options there - 'Transaction name' and 'Perfix'. A couple of > > thoughts here. > > > > When we select 'Transaction name', it uses that name for both Transaction > > Controller and ALL sample names underneath. Not optimal approach in my > case > > - I'd rather keep urls as sample names (to be able separate them) and use > > the transaction name for Transaction Controller only. > > When we select 'Prefix', it puts it before the number - which, as far as > I > > understand here, may mess up sorting in reports etc. So I wonder if > putting > > prefix behind the number may be a better option at least in some cases. > > Not saying that these suggestion are better - I guess it shouldn't be a > > big problem to have all 4 options. Or, maybe, some kind of format > options - > > where you specify exactly what transaction and sample names would be - > > would be a more generic and elegant solution. > > Just thoughts.... > > > > Thanks,Alex > > > > > -- > Cordialement. > Philippe Mouawad. >
