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

Command Options are duplicate #85

Closed
lxs137 opened this issue Mar 20, 2018 · 9 comments
Closed

Command Options are duplicate #85

lxs137 opened this issue Mar 20, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@lxs137
Copy link

lxs137 commented Mar 20, 2018

In PerfTest.java

options.addOption(new Option("T", "body-content-type", true, "body content-type"));

options.addOption(new Option("T", "queue-pattern-to", true, "sequence end for queue pattern (included)"));

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

queue-pattern-to was introduced in 6b59258 and was never a part of a GA release, so we should change that one.

@lxs137
Copy link
Author

lxs137 commented Mar 20, 2018

But if I use "--body-content-type application/json", it will throw exception:
Main thread caught exception: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "application/json" java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "application/json" at java.lang.NumberFormatException.forInputString(NumberFormatException.java:65) at java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer.java:580) at java.lang.Integer.parseInt(Integer.java:615) at com.rabbitmq.perf.PerfTest.intArg(PerfTest.java:357) at com.rabbitmq.perf.PerfTest.main(PerfTest.java:161) at com.rabbitmq.perf.PerfTest.main(PerfTest.java:252)

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

This is expected because the latter -T flag is an integer and it overrides the previous value.

@lxs137
Copy link
Author

lxs137 commented Mar 20, 2018

So I should use Release "2.0.0" instead of "2.1.0.M2" ?

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

As the name suggests, 2.1.0.M2 is a preview release. If you don't need any of the improvements in it, I'd use 2.0. That said, this issue will be resolved in the next hour or so.

@lxs137
Copy link
Author

lxs137 commented Mar 20, 2018

I get it. Thanks!!

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

@acogoluegnes should we produce a new milestone release for the time being? Even if we almost immediately follow with another one that includes #83.

@acogoluegnes
Copy link
Collaborator

@michaelklishin Yes, makes sense to release a new milestone with this fix, I'll do it.

@michaelklishin
Copy link
Member

@lxs137 please give 2.1.0.M4 a try.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants