Comments on: Unique Usernames in LoadRunner http://www.myloadtest.com/unique-usernames-in-loadrunner/ Performance Testing with a LoadRunner focus Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:37:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aju Sreekumar http://www.myloadtest.com/unique-usernames-in-loadrunner/#comment-13690 Aju Sreekumar Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:57:34 +0000 /?p=20#comment-13690 I have recently started working on Loadrunner leaving back my short stay in the Java/J2EE arena. As I do not have a profile in the mercury support site yet, I have not seen the original article by John, which is the center point to this discussion. Right now I use this approach to generate unique UserIds. Here is the code snippet. // modify the uniqueId for each test run char *uniqueId = "XXX1"; char memberId[20]; //Generate Unique MemberIds sprintf(memberId, "%s%s%s", uniqueId, lr_eval_string("{VUserID}"), lr_eval_string("{IterationNumber}")); For each test run, I increment/modify the uniqueId and keep track of the changes in my workbook, there by I can refer back and find out at a later stage when was the memberId created. This approach works fine for us and removes any ambiguity that may arise with srand or millisecond approach. The down side that I can foresee with the approach as suggested by the author is that there is a small percentage of chance for the userIds/usernames to be repeated when running multiple tests. Please share your thoughts on this. Regards, AJ I have recently started working on Loadrunner leaving back my short stay in the Java/J2EE arena. As I do not have a profile in the mercury support site yet, I have not seen the original article by John, which is the center point to this discussion. Right now I use this approach to generate unique UserIds. Here is the code snippet.

// modify the uniqueId for each test run
char *uniqueId = “XXX1″;
char memberId[20];

//Generate Unique MemberIds
sprintf(memberId,
“%s%s%s”,
uniqueId,
lr_eval_string(“{VUserID}”),
lr_eval_string(“{IterationNumber}”));

For each test run, I increment/modify the uniqueId and keep track of the changes in my workbook, there by I can refer back and find out at a later stage when was the memberId created. This approach works fine for us and removes any ambiguity that may arise with srand or millisecond approach.

The down side that I can foresee with the approach as suggested by the author is that there is a small percentage of chance for the userIds/usernames to be repeated when running multiple tests. Please share your thoughts on this.

Regards,
AJ

]]>