Recommend a feature for future StresStimulus versions.
Test 'Update' scenario
|
Tony L. Posts: 8
6/1/2011
|
***Completed in v1.0 Augusts Update***
First of all, StresStimulus is an awesome tool for stress test.
While I am trying the Pro version, I found it's hard to do the 'update' test.
Consider following scenario:
Step 1. User opens an edit page for a specified record
Step 2. User changes one or some fields on the page returned
Step 3. User clicks ‘Update’ button to make a HTTP post with the fields on page
For now, it's supported to parameterize the step 1 with the record ids from a CSV data source. When proceeding with step 2 and step 3, besides the fields overridden by user's input (which can be parameterized) , ideally, the other fields should be submitted with their original values returned from server as result of step 1. If I understand correctly, this will be a great feature that however the current version lacks.
Thanks
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vadim @StresStimulus Administrator Posts: 583
6/1/2011
|
Hi Tony,
Welcome to StresStimulus place and thanks for complimenting the tool.
In your scenario there will be two requests: on step 1 and step3. User has the option to parameterize either or both of them.
…ideally, the other fields should be submitted with their original values returned from server as result of step 1. If I understand correctly, this will be a great feature that however the current version lacks.
That is how it is designed to work. Test will replay recorded values from the test case except parameterized fields. It means that the other fields in your case will be replayed with the original values returned from server as result of step 1. To test this, compare field values in the test results with the values in the test case. Please let me know if this is not happening.
Cheers,
-Vadim
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Tony L. Posts: 8
6/1/2011
|
Hi Vadim, thanks for the quick response.
As the step 1 will return the field values specific to the record id, you mean for each iteration, the step 3 will use the values returned from step 1 in that iteration unless otherwise overridden? I will try it out and let you know.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vadim @StresStimulus Administrator Posts: 583
6/1/2011
|
Tony,
Currently for the fields whose values must be changed on the postback, parameterization should be used, and for all other fields, the recorded values will be used automatically.
While looking deeper into your both post here, I believe that you also want the 3-rd option, which I would characterize as follows:
- Create an option to auto-correlate all fields on a postback, except those that are parameterized or changed during the recording.
This is very interesting and should be very helpful. It is similar to the feature described here, but adds an extra level of automation. Will keep it on the list.
Thanks,
-Vadim
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Tony L. Posts: 8
6/2/2011
|
Exactly.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vadim @StresStimulus Administrator Posts: 583
8/17/2011
|
Hi Tony,
I wanted to let you know that the autocorrelation that you have suggested is added in the v1.0 Augusts Update released today.
Thanks for your thought!
-Vadim
|
|
|
0
link
|
Copyright © 2024 Stimulus Technology