3 ms·

> but it's limited in features compared to existing peformance testing tools, and I'd personally rather write tests in a programming language, than in a bespoke

> but it's limited in features compared to existing peformance testing tools, and I'd personally rather write tests in a programming language, than in a bespoke text format. I’d hardly call hurl’s config bespoke, it basically amounts to HTTP codes and some header stuff, which basically everyone is familiar with. From personal experience a couple of weeks ago I needed some http tests. I got a CI-ready Hurl config working on some endpoints for work sorted within like, 5 minutes of downloading it. In comparison I opened the page for K6, saw the “write tests using JS” and basically noped out immediately,

imiric 3y ago
That's fair, and k6 is not for everyone. JS was chosen as it's a popular language with a large web ecosystem, but the tool itself is written in Go. That said... > I got a CI-ready Hurl config working on some endpoints for work sorted within like, 5 minutes of downloading it. I'm obviously biased, but I'd argue that k6 is equally easy to get started with. Take a look at the docs[1]. > I’d hardly call hurl’s config bespoke But it is. It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK. I'm not saying it's not simple or easy to understand, but it's not as expressive as a programming language. Which is fine if your tests don't require any logic, but from experience, in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test, you do need some logic, different scheduling options, a way to process and analyze the metrics, etc. I don't want to turn this into a versus battle, as there is a place for tools such as Hurl, ab, and wrk to coexist with tools like k6 and Locust. I just wanted to mention it as an option for anyone who hasn't heard about it, as any personal biases aside, I do think it's a great tool. [1]: https://k6.io/docs/ https://k6.io/docs/
- FridgeSeal 3y ago
  > Take a look at the docs Yeah, I did they start off with JS shenanigans, including importing packages, which immediately makes me concerned I’m going to have to deal with JS packaging dumpster-fire. There’s then one line of CLI args, followed by even more JS boilerplate. > in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test I think the mismatch here is that Hurl is closer to being a http testing tool, not a load-testing tool, so most of these features are unnecessary. > It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK. Taking the example from the front page: GET https://example.org https://example.org HTTP 200 [Captures] csrf_token: xpath "string(//meta[@name='_csrf_token']/@content)" Character for character, most of this is bog-standard http verbs, a url, and an html path string. The Jetbrain HTTP tool also sports very similar interface, and I believe there’s a VSCode plugin somewhere that does a similar thing.

imiric 3y ago

That's fair, and k6 is not for everyone. JS was chosen as it's a popular language with a large web ecosystem, but the tool itself is written in Go. That said... > I got a CI-ready Hurl config working on some endpoints for work sorted within like, 5 minutes of downloading it. I'm obviously biased, but I'd argue that k6 is equally easy to get started with. Take a look at the docs[1]. > I’d hardly call hurl’s config bespoke But it is. It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK. I'm not saying it's not simple or easy to understand, but it's not as expressive as a programming language. Which is fine if your tests don't require any logic, but from experience, in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test, you do need some logic, different scheduling options, a way to process and analyze the metrics, etc. I don't want to turn this into a versus battle, as there is a place for tools such as Hurl, ab, and wrk to coexist with tools like k6 and Locust. I just wanted to mention it as an option for anyone who hasn't heard about it, as any personal biases aside, I do think it's a great tool. [1]: https://k6.io/docs/ https://k6.io/docs/

FridgeSeal 3y ago
> Take a look at the docs Yeah, I did they start off with JS shenanigans, including importing packages, which immediately makes me concerned I’m going to have to deal with JS packaging dumpster-fire. There’s then one line of CLI args, followed by even more JS boilerplate. > in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test I think the mismatch here is that Hurl is closer to being a http testing tool, not a load-testing tool, so most of these features are unnecessary. > It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK. Taking the example from the front page: GET https://example.org https://example.org HTTP 200 [Captures] csrf_token: xpath "string(//meta[@name='_csrf_token']/@content)" Character for character, most of this is bog-standard http verbs, a url, and an html path string. The Jetbrain HTTP tool also sports very similar interface, and I believe there’s a VSCode plugin somewhere that does a similar thing.