On 27/11/2007, Dmitry Kudrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings, sebb!
>
> s> On 27/11/2007, Dmitry Kudrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> I need to implement the following functions for my testplan:
> >> >> 1. long __timestamp()
> >> >> returns new Date().getTime()
> >>
> >> s> ${__time()}
> >> Oh, sorry. I thought it returns only string representation of time
> >> using specified format. I omitted corresponding notes in the
> >> documentation.
> >> >> 2. long __timeDuration(String variableName)
> >> >> returns new Date().getTime() - variables.get(variableName)
> >>
> >> s> ${__intSum(${__time()},-${variableName})}
> >> Thank you. I am always forgot about such this sort of notation like
> >> -${variableName}
> BTW, intSum is working with int, but __time() returns long. And seems
> example you send me is not working because the following conversion is
> used:
>
> Integer.parseInt(((CompoundVariable) values[i]).execute());
>
Oops - yes, you're right. I'll see about adding a longSum()...
> >> >> 3. boolean __isTimeoutExpaired(String variableName, long timeout)
> >> >> returns true if __timeduration for variableName more than specified
> >> >> timeout.
> >>
> >> s> ${__javaScript(${variableName} > timeout)}
> >> Yes, you are right, but I don't like to use __javaScript at all. When
> >> I replaced my __javaScripts calculations to __BeanShell my test plan
> >> works in several times faster. Maybe it is so only for calculations but
> >> not for comparing operations.
>
> s> I'd not noticed that javaScript is slower than BeanShell.
> s> Perhaps it is the startup time - the BeanShell interpreter is re-used
> s> by the function; I think the JS interpreter is created afresh each
> s> time. Not sure if it is possible to change that.
> All threads in my test plan are blocked long time with javaScript.execute().
> And
> test works faster after every replacement javaScript to BeanShell or
> custom functions. Not ready to post it as bug but have this situation
> for me.
>
> s> Forgot to mention you can also use __jexl().
> Yes, thank you. I remember about it, maybe it is faster but
> unfortunately I didn't try it yet. But I will. Thank you.
>
> Seems our conversation should be continued on the user's branch. :)
>
> s> Might be faster than __javaScript() and you don't have to download any
> jars.
> s> But I think it is also recreated each time.
>
> >> In any case I agree with you it is not necessary function without
> >> previous. Thank you.
> >>
> >> >> It is useful for me to use them in operations with timeouts.
> >> >> E.g.: For sending request to server while something is not received or
> >> >> time is expired.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is possible to use javaScript or beanShell for this needs.
> >> >> But it is not clear for me to read and work with this plan...
> >>
> >> s> See above.
> >>
> >> >> If community wants I can send you patches to commit.
> >>
> >> s> Please don't e-mail patches - they should be provided via Bugzilla.
> >>
> >> >> But I think Function.java interface involves code duplication in several
> >> >> places, such as the following example for Varialble.java:
> >> >>
> >> >> public synchronized void setParameters(Collection parameters) throws
> >> >> InvalidVariableException {
> >> >> values = parameters.toArray();
> >> >> if ((values.length < MIN_PARAMETER_COUNT) || (values.length >
> >> >> MAX_PARAMETER_COUNT)) {
> >> >> throw new InvalidVariableException("Parameter Count not between
> >> >> " + MIN_PARAMETER_COUNT + " & "
> >> >> + MAX_PARAMETER_COUNT);
> >> >> }
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it will be better to have:
> >> >> protected int getMinParameterCount()
> >> >> protected int getMaxParameterCount()
> >> >>
> >> >> and use them to verify parameters diapason and set it to values list for
> >> >> all functions.
> >> >> Also the following code construction is used 46 times for function
> >> >> implementations:
> >> >>
> >> >> ((CompoundVariable) values[index]).execute()
> >> >>
> >> >> I think to extract this method to some utils
> >> >> class in this package or to the AbstractFunction class, for example:
> >> >>
> >> >> protected (static?) String getParameter(Object obj)
> >> >>
> >> >> and so on...
> >> >>
> >> >> I understand that a lot of developers have own function implementation
> >> >> based on Function API and it is not good to change this API but it is
> >> >> possible to change AbstractFunction or add new super class extended from
> >> >> AbstractFunction and use it for predefined functions.
> >>
> >> s> Quite possibly...
> What way do you prefer?
> I suggest to change AbstractFunction at the beginning.
>
> >>
> >> >> Just let me know if you want this refactoring too and I can do it. I
> >>
> >> s> If you are keen to do it, I suggest you provide a patch for just one
> >> s> of the functions so it can be reviewed before further work is done.
> >>
> >> ok.
> >>
> >> >> need to know your opinion for changing only my stuff or to refactor
> >> >> all other functions too.
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Kudrenko
> ARDAS group (http://www.ardas.dp.ua)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
