s> longSum() function added in SVN r598724.
Thanks.
s> It will be in the next "nightly" build.
>> > >> >> 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]
