Re: [OpenSTA-users] Transactions not submitted

[Olaf K. <ok...@ab...>]

Daniel Sutcliffe schrieb:
> Olaf Kock wrote:
>> I'm thinking about a feature request to generate a comment into the
>> head of the recorded script containing information that the script
>> usually MUST be modified in order to get expected results.
>> Probably this would get read more than any documentation... Daniel?
>> ;-)
>  - how about something along the lines of:
>  "This script was recorded by the OpenSTA Gateway version M.m.p.B.
>   The unmodified script does not check for Web application or HTTP
>   errors - you must hand code any return checking and flow logic if
>   you want the replay to react to any potentially different returns
>   than happened in the original recording session."
> Do you think this could short circuit some potential confusion?  If
> there's enough positive feedback for this sort of thing then we'll 
> certainly make sure the next version contains something like it.

This is nice. Perhaps a few uppercase-letters (even though they might be
perceived more rude) would help more:

  "This script was recorded by the OpenSTA Gateway version M.m.p.B.
   The unmodified script DOES NOT CHECK for Web application or HTTP
   errors - you MUST HAND CODE any return checking and flow logic if
   you want the replay to react to any potentially different returns
   than happened in the original recording session."

I'm still thinking about a pointer to the SCL docs - but then: it might
be overkill...

Cheers,
Olaf
-- 
No part of this message may reproduce, store itself in a retrieval
system, or transmit disease, in any form, without the permissiveness of
the author.