Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52019] Add menu option to enable/disable timers when running Plan

--20cf303dd9d03f5d0504af33e7cf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for your advice, it is much better implementation
I implemented it this way.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 13 October 2011 18:34, Philippe Mouawad
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello Sebb,
> > Do you agree with this proposition :
> >
> >   - Add an Menu Option called "Run with timers disabled"
>
> I see - so it would only apply to GUI runs - that's reasonable.
>
> >   - This option will set a boolean on GuiPackage#getinstance() called
> >   noTimersPause
> >   - Timers will consult this option to decide whether to run or not pau=
se
>
> That would require changing all timers; what happens about 3rd party
> timers?
> See below for simpler option.
>
> >   - At end of run option will be reset (what would be the best way to
> >   detect end, StandardJMeterEngine#run after waitThreadsStopped ?)
> >
>
> The GUI Start code has to clone and traverse the tree before passing
> it to the engine, so it could remove the Timers there.
> Disabled elements are removed anyway, so it could alternatively
> disable them if that was easier.
>
> Perhaps create a subclass of TreeCloner that skips Timers.
>
> No need to reset the option afterwards.
>
> > If you are Ok, I can implement it.
> >
> > Regards
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Philippe Mouawad <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Sebb,
> >> In my opinion this option would be useful only in Scripting Phase so
> >> through GUI.
> >> That's why I wanted it as a Menu Option or maybe "Run with timers
> disabled"
> >> .
> >>
> >> My implementation idea was to test in parent delay() method a check fo=
r
> >> this option and return immediately if it is on.
> >>
> >> This would make it simple to implement and would not be persisted in
> Test
> >> Plan nor disabling of Timers would occur.
> >> What do you think ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D52019
> >>>
> >>> --- Comment #1 from Sebb <[email protected]> 2011-10-13 10:59:33 UTC --=
-
> >>> Rather than a Menu item, perhaps it should be a Test Plan option, whi=
ch
> >>> would
> >>> mean checking for it in the engine code. But I think it would be
> simpler
> >>> overall.
> >>>
> >>> If done via a Menu option, disabling is easy.
> >>>
> >>> However, I assume there would be a re-enable option - what about time=
rs
> >>> that
> >>> were originally disabled? Seems wrong to enable those, so the code
> would
> >>> have
> >>> to keep track of which Timers did not need re-enabling.
> >>>
> >>> What if the Test Plan were updated in the mean-time? How could one ke=
ep
> >>> track
> >>> of which Timers to re-enable?
> >>>
> >>> Using a Test Plan option would mean it would also work in non-GUI and
> >>> client-server mode.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Configure bugmail:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=3Demail
> >>> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> >>> You reported the bug.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cordialement.
> >> Philippe Mouawad.
> >> Ubik-Ing=E9nierie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cordialement.
> > Philippe Mouawad.
> > Ubik-Ing=E9nierie
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


--=20
Cordialement.
Philippe Mouawad.

--20cf303dd9d03f5d0504af33e7cf--