Alternative grouping

[Serhiy1]

• Add an alternative way to group requests together, do deal with situations where passing in a name parameter is not possible
• Add examples using the alternative grouping approaches.
• Added an example of session patching when working with SDK's

[cyberw]

Maybe split this into two sections? ”Testing non-HTTP systems” and ”Testing requests-based SDKs”?

[cyberw]

Cool stuff!

• it needs a unit test
• it needs formatting fixed (just run Black)
• I think the field name should be ”request_name” and not ”group_name” Grouping is just one use case for naming - you might do it to clarify or differentiate requests with the same URL. For the context version maybe rename() instead of group()? Or maybe name()? Not as sure about thay one.

[Serhiy1]

Cool stuff!

• it needs a unit test
• it needs formatting fixed (just run Black)
• I think the field name should be ”request_name” and not ”group_name” Grouping is just one use case for naming - you might do it to clarify or differentiate requests with the same URL. For the context version maybe rename() instead of group()? Or maybe name()? Not as sure about thay one.

cheers for the feedback, I will do all the items listed out.

[Serhiy1]

@cyberw All the suggested changes are done though I'm not 100% happy with the function name for the context manager.

I think maybe instead of name_request changing it to request_name_context will keep it's intention clear and avoid any potential mix-ups with the field name.

[cyberw]

Code looks great now! I think you've duplicated the documentation? Also, the new page needs to be added to index.rst to become visible in the left hand menu in the docs.

Maybe rename_request is more clear?

[Serhiy1]

• Rats, you're right about the duplicated documentation.
• I think I've already added the new page to index.rst? Unless I mis-understood something.
• And yeah I like rename_request more

[cyberw]

Looks great!

[cyberw]

Two small issues, now that I see the documentation first hand (https://docs.locust.io/en/latest/)

The title is weird, and there is an extra heading that you should probably remove.

[Serhiy1]

@cyberw agreed, that doesn't look great.

I've fixed that, and slightly changed the wording, shall I make another PR?

[cyberw]

Please do! Looks good! I think SDKs is more grammatically correct than SDK's, but that is a detail :)