[Bug 62909] JMS: Normalise JNDI settings
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62909 Andrew Burton changed: What|Removed |Added OS||All --- Comment #1 from Andrew Burton --- I'm working on a patch for this, but guidance on the questions would be appreciated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 62909] New: JMS: Normalise JNDI settings
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62909 Bug ID: 62909 Summary: JMS: Normalise JNDI settings Product: JMeter Version: 5.0 Hardware: PC Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: Main Assignee: issues@jmeter.apache.org Reporter: ad...@hotmail.com Target Milestone: JMETER_5.1 JMS Publisher, JMS Subscriber and JMS Point to Point share common JNDI fields that could be moved to a panel class. +- JNDI Properties -+ | [] Use jndi.properties| | __ Initial Context Factory| | __ Provider URL | | [] Use AuthorisationUser [ ] Password [ ] | | | +---+ The JMSSampler currently uses a JMeter property JMSSampler.useSecurity.properties for authentication - this would require a change on the JMSSampler to use the above settings, or the GUI code could hide those fields only for the JMSSampler. This is part of https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61830 Some questions: * What should we do with the JNDI Properties table, displayed in the JMS Point to Point sampler? Is it only applicable for this sampler? * There's a reference to the library jmeter-jms-skip-jndi, which has a single v0.0.1 release in Oct 2012 (https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.elega9t/jmeter-jms-skip-jndi) in the documentation - is this still relevant? The docs have little to say on when/where this is used -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 62887] Customized SampleLabel is ignored and overwritten by JMeter 5.0
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62887 --- Comment #16 from Alan Silva --- (In reply to Philippe Mouawad from comment #10) > (In reply to Alan Silva from comment #9) > > Oh yes. You're absolutely right @Philippe Mouawad. > > > > The patch should haven been an if/else. My mistake. > > > > In any case, as I said in my previous comment: > > > > Calling addSubResult(SampleResult subResult, false) is good enough I think. > > > > That's what I ended up doing and I would presume that it's what other Jmeter > > users that upgraded to 5.0 and use custom result labels did as well. > > Hello Alan, > Thanks for your feedback. > > So In your opinion, is it ok to do nothing ? or should we do something. > > Of course we should add a note on this in release notes. > > Thanks Hi, sorry I stopped monitoring this ticket for a bit. IMO, you could leave the current implementation as is, as long as it's mentioned in the rel notes like you suggested. As long as other users like myself don't have to open up the code to find out why things changed, then I think everything is good. Cheers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
