The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20201129211340/https://github.com/loadimpact/k6/issues/1611
Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Summary report in json format is missing fields defined in summaryTrendStats #1611

Open
alexandr-lobyntsev opened this issue Aug 31, 2020 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@alexandr-lobyntsev
Copy link

@alexandr-lobyntsev alexandr-lobyntsev commented Aug 31, 2020

The summary report in stdout has fields provided by summaryTrendStats, but in JSON format report ignores that definition

Environment

K6 version: k6 v0.27.1 (2020-07-30T10:20:27+0000/v0.27.1-0-g4ee1ca96, go1.14.6, linux/amd64)
OS version: 18.04.2 LTS (Bionic Beaver)

Expected Behavior

The fields defined in summaryTrendStats are represented in the JSON summary report

Actual Behavior

The fields defined in summaryTrendStats are ignored during the JSON summary report generation

Steps to Reproduce the Problem

  1. Define custom percentiles p(98) with the options
export let options = {
  summaryTrendStats: ["avg", "min", "med", "max", "p(90)", "p(95)", "p(98)"],
  1. Execute k6 run with the --summary-export agrument to generate JSON summary report

Stdout summary report

    http_req_blocked.........................: min=1.02µs   avg=821.07µs med=5.84µs   max=378.81ms p(90)=9.12µs   p(95)=10.97µs  p(98)=21.87µs 
    http_req_connecting......................: min=0s       avg=152.8µs  med=0s       max=85.03ms  p(90)=0s       p(95)=0s       p(98)=0s      
    http_req_duration........................: min=45.3ms   avg=58.76ms  med=53.99ms  max=619.42ms p(90)=66.84ms  p(95)=75ms     p(98)=99.86ms 
    http_req_receiving.......................: min=16.66µs  avg=247.08µs med=100.55µs max=49.85ms  p(90)=596.83µs p(95)=723.86µs p(98)=1.1ms   
    http_req_sending.........................: min=6.18µs   avg=45.21µs  med=33.13µs  max=7.32ms   p(90)=47.98µs  p(95)=69.18µs  p(98)=271.45µs
    http_req_tls_handshaking.................: min=0s       avg=351.39µs med=0s       max=250.02ms p(90)=0s       p(95)=0s       p(98)=0s      
    http_req_waiting.........................: min=45.21ms  avg=58.47ms  med=53.74ms  max=619.32ms p(90)=66.48ms  p(95)=74.81ms  p(98)=98.68ms 
    http_reqs................................: 9930    654.441841/s
    iteration_duration.......................: min=149.28ms avg=190.69ms med=174.06ms max=750.84ms p(90)=214.95ms p(95)=262.53ms p(98)=467.06ms
    iterations...............................: 1986    130.888368/s

JSON summary report

        "http_req_blocked": {
            "avg": 0.8210748100704939,
            "max": 378.813427,
            "med": 0.005846,
            "min": 0.001024,
            "p(90)": 0.0091233,
            "p(95)": 0.010976199999999997
        },
        "http_req_connecting": {
            "avg": 0.15280677905337361,
            "max": 85.035816,
            "med": 0,
            "min": 0,
            "p(90)": 0,
            "p(95)": 0
        },
        "http_req_duration": {
            "avg": 58.76745789798619,
            "max": 619.42353,
            "med": 53.996348,
            "min": 45.30651,
            "p(90)": 66.8408204,
            "p(95)": 75.0026239
        },
        "http_req_receiving": {
            "avg": 0.24708492749244615,
            "max": 49.858361,
            "med": 0.1005595,
            "min": 0.016666,
            "p(90)": 0.5968348000000002,
            "p(95)": 0.7238643999999999
        },

@na--
Copy link
Member

@na-- na-- commented Aug 31, 2020

Thanks for reporting this! It was previously reported in #1433, but I'll keep this issue open and close the other one, since this has more details.

@na--
Copy link
Member

@na-- na-- commented Aug 31, 2020

Also, this is potentially a connected issue, though maybe not quite the same: #1253

@alavi201
Copy link

@alavi201 alavi201 commented Oct 28, 2020

Hi @na-- do you have any updates on this issue?

@na--
Copy link
Member

@na-- na-- commented Oct 28, 2020

Yes, it's likely we'll fix this for k6 v0.30.0, since it's connected to other end-of-test summary issues we're currently working on.

@na-- na-- added this to the v0.30.0 milestone Oct 28, 2020
@alexandr-lobyntsev
Copy link
Author

@alexandr-lobyntsev alexandr-lobyntsev commented Oct 29, 2020

Yes, it's likely we'll fix this for k6 v0.30.0, since it's connected to other end-of-test summary issues we're currently working on.

We are waiting for it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.