[hatatap] hatatap planned features

[Martin Klang]

A FireFox extension would be very nice indeed...

Using JMeters proxy turns out a lot easier than I could have hoped for. 
JMeter saves its test plans in XML format, and while very different 
from the hatatap scripts, a fairly simple conversion is possible.
I've attached a very simple proof-of-concept conversion stylesheet.
It's capable of transforming a basic JMeter testplan into a hatatap 
script. It only properly handles GET requests and basic response 
assertions.
It's entirely possible and probably fairly easy to extend the 
stylesheet to convert more complex test plans.

As for POST requests, there's a problem with the current hatatap 
version.
The stylesheet produces elements like so: <test:form 
url="foobar">...</test:form>
However hatatap, and the underlying HttpUnit engine, need to know which 
form in the page is required, based on something else than the action 
url.

To try out recording scripts with JMeter, do the following:
- start JMeter, create a new project.
- add a ThreadGroup to your TestPlan, and a RecordingController to the 
ThreadGroup
- add an HTTP Proxy Server to your WorkBench
- start the proxy server, configure a browser to use it, and do some 
browsing
- when done, stop the proxy server and save the project (there should 
be lots of HTTP Requests under your RecordingController)
- run the attached stylesheet on the JMeter project file (called *.jmx) 
and out comes a hatatap test script

If the test plan includes POST requests, they will show up in the 
script but hatatap will not be able to execute them.

The script should work with any JMeter test plan, but does not (yet) 
honour User Defined Variables etc.

I'm thinking that the hatatap vocabulary could be extended with two new 
constructs to allow a different style of testing, one similar to 
sending a pre-recorded set of requests ->
1)
<test:get url="expr"/>
would work exactly like <test:click url="expr"/>
can take nested <test:header> and <test:cookie> elements

2)
<test:post url="expr">
   ....
</test:post>
would work pretty much as <test:form>, but instead of simulating how 
the browser fills out a form, a POST request would be assembled and 
sent directly.

and for completeness <test:head>, <test:put> etc.

/m

On 10 May 2005, at 2:26, David Rudder wrote:

> Yeah, I can see what you're talking about. I know HttpUnit (which is 
> the base of Hatatap, right?) supports javascript and a more 
> client-centric approach. This would probably be pretty slick. What 
> about a Firefox extension? Just brainstorming... (and not offering any 
> help with it :)
> However, the proxy method would fit my needs pretty well. I'd have to 
> do some manual post-processing, but it'd still save me tons of time.
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jmx-to-hatatap.xsl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2599 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.pingdynasty.com/pipermail/hatatap/attachments/20050510/8f82f117/jmx-to-hatatap.obj
-------------- next part --------------