Ned Andreev

Cross-posting to note another use case for this feature, related to setting thresholds only for specific stages: https://github.com/loadimpact/k6/issues/1136#issuecomment-557488687

@joseray, no, it's not yet implemented. You can watch this issue, since we'll close it when we implemet the feature.

This issue would be useful, though I think it's best if we focus our energies on other similar ones that are more flexible. If we had https://github.com/loadimpact/k6/issues/1320, i.e. be able...

Thanks for reporting this! We've known about for a while, but we lost sight of it... :disappointed: It is something halfway between a bug and a missing feature, one of...

Sorry @jsolv, nobody has worked on this yet. I added it to the next milestone, but I can't make any promises when we'll get to it... :disappointed: If someone wants...

I'll give an example why I think points 1 and 2 above cover 80-90% of the use cases. Here's how, if we add the `startAfter` property and the `composite` executor,...

> The idea for the `composite` executor makes sense, though I'm also worried about the complexity. I may be wrong, but I think this refactoring will actually reduce the complexity...

Thinking about an unrelated issue, I realized that my initial plan above has a major problem - `startAfter` wouldn't be as simple to implement as I thought :disappointed: Most executors...

Thinking some more, VU requirement calculations for a `variable-looping-vus` executor with a `startAfter: "someIterationBasedExecutor"` aren't a problem. They are complicated, but we already have the code to do them... :sweat_smile:...

@Nicole1991, this is an _open_ issue that discusses ways to implement test suites. Neither `type: "composite", startAfter: "X"` nor anything like them has been implemented yet. The only way you...