On 29/09/2009, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Le 28/09/2009 01:54, sebb a ecrit : > > > On 27/09/2009, Milamber <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I works on French translation of new elements Comparison Assertion and > > > Comparison Assertion Visualizer. I have some questions: > > > > > > * Some messages like "Response time:" aren't internationalized. I would > > > like do this. Which resources files must be used? > > > - messages.properties > > > or > > > - CompareAssertionResources.properties > > > > > > > > > > CompareAssertionResources.properties is used for the > CompareAssertion GUI > > > > messages.properties is used for any GUIs which don't implement TestBean. > > > > > > For message "Response time:" in ComparisonAssertion class (which implement > TestBean) but the message is only display in ComparisonVisualizer (which not > implement TestBean), can you confirm the best resource file ? (I think > messages.properties...)
Yes, messages.properties is used for any GUIs which don't implement TestBean. Though of course for a French translation you need to edit messages_fr.properties. If the GUI uses a fixed string rather than a resource property, then translation involves: - change code to use resource - add property to messages.properties - add translations to messages_xx.properties > > > > > > > > * In CompareAssertionResources.properties, I think > this > > > message isn't correct? > > > compareTime.shortDescription=Verify that all Samplers' > > > return times are within a given number of milliseconds > > > > > > > > > > I think it needs to be qualified with "of each other". > > That could be inferred from that fact that the assertion compares > > samplers, but it would be better to be explicit. > > > > > > > > > In code, compare time behaviour verify that response time difference > > > between previous and current are within a given number of ms. > > > (But a 'break instruction' used if compare time failure is found at > first > > > element under the controller, other aren't never tested - that's a bug?) > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so - because the first failure wins. > > > > > With this test plan : > > -Thread Group (1-1-1) > |--Simple Controller > |--Loop controller (5 loops) > |--Java Sampler > |--Compare Assertion (compare content false and compare time with 100 > (ms)) > |--Comparison Assertion Visualizer > |--View Results Tree > > loop1: response time 271 ms > loop2: response time 295 ms => success in CAV and VRT (noting display in > CAV, element tree is white) > loop3: response time 147 ms => failure in CAV and VRT (in CAV: left pane: > RT 295 and right pane: RT 147, element tree is red) > loop4: response time 284 ms => failure in CAV and VRT (because loop3 > failed, no comparison with loop4 response time) (in CAV: left pane: RT 295 > and right pane: RT 147 (not 284), element tree is red) > loop5: response time 275 ms => failure in CAV and VRT (because loop3 > failed, no comparison with loop5 response time) (in CAV: left pane: RT 295 > and right pane: RT 147 (not 275), element tree is red) > > The "comparison assertion" mark as a failure all samplers within a > controller when the first test failed has been found. > Perhaps, it would be better to add a sentence in manual, because I was in > mistake by the messages in Comparison Assertion Visualizer (always same > error message) > > Milamber The code was copied from an old Java 5 development - it looked as though it might be useful. Unfortunately, there is no documentation of how it is intended to work. I'm not sure now how I would expect a comparison assertion to work: - should the first response be treated as the "good" sample, and subsequent responses compared to it? - should each response be compared with the previous response? If so, this would allow a steadily increasing (or decreasing) elapsed time without complaining. Also, if response 3 fails when compared with response 2, what should response 4 be compared against? If the behaviour needs to be changed to be more useful, now is the time to do it ... or maybe I should just remove the code again. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Milamber > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
