-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
[feature]: Ability to run a collection of requests sequentially #3983
Comments
We've been working on this feature, there's an active pull request #3600 to introduce the Collection Runner feature. |
I work for a large company that very soon will need to replace POSTMAN. |
We’re hoping to release this feature in the next few weeks. @RJRReid, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this:
|
All of out development environment are isolated from the Internet, so
only programs that have been loaded to the machine images will run.
All of out testing scenarios are in CSV format.
All of the test data is created on the development machines and stays on
the development machines (no connection to the "outside world").
Being completely isolated is the reason we can no longer use Postman as
they are phasing this ability out of their newer releases.
…------ Original Message ------
From "Liyas Thomas" ***@***.***>
To "hoppscotch/hoppscotch" ***@***.***>
Cc "RJRReid" ***@***.***>; "Mention" ***@***.***>
Date 4/25/2024 10:31:50 PM
Subject Re: [hoppscotch/hoppscotch] [feature]: Ability to run a
collection of requests sequentially (Issue #3983)
We’re hoping to release this feature in the next few weeks.
@RJRReid <https://github.com/RJRReid>, I’d love to hear your thoughts
on this:
Will you be comfortable with running the Collections from the GUI or a
terminal/CI/CD pipeline?
Does JSON format works for you instead of CSV?
How are these files created and maintained in your organisation?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3983 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIC5MXWXA7OG3Z2TDRPFD6DY7HDCNAVCNFSM6AAAAABGMZJCRKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANZYGU3TANBVGM>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Question: will this support similar functionality as Postman where you can have a request basically repeat itself? The use case I’m thinking is request one loads an array as a variables, request two pops an element off that array and makes a request and then repeats itself if there are still elements in the array. Something similar to postman.setNextRequest? |
No. We do not need that feature.
We just need a Runner that fills in variables in the Pre-script, body
and test from an item in a CSV (We use EXCEL to work with the CSV).
Each row in the Excel CSV, not including the header, is consumed by the
collection one at a time until the item count is reached or the CSV rows
are depleted.
…------ Original Message ------
From "Michael Jones" ***@***.***>
To "hoppscotch/hoppscotch" ***@***.***>
Cc "RJRReid" ***@***.***>; "Mention" ***@***.***>
Date 4/27/2024 6:58:42 AM
Subject Re: [hoppscotch/hoppscotch] [feature]: Ability to run a
collection of requests sequentially (Issue #3983)
Question: will this support similar functionality as Postman where you
can have a request basically repeat itself? The use case I’m thinking
is request one loads an array as a variables, request two pops an
element off that array and makes a request and then repeats itself if
there are still elements in the array.
Something similar to postman.setNextRequest?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#3983 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIC5MXVNLBRBXXZPZHZ6LQTY7OHHFAVCNFSM6AAAAABGMZJCRKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBQGQ3TSMZZHE>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Is there an existing issue for this?
Summary
I would like to be able to make some kind of "scenario" that runs a set of requests, waits for first one to finish and only continue if the previous was successful (aka returns status 200). Maybe the default assertion is that the request returns with status 200 but if you define tests for the requests, those have to pass before proceeding.
Why should this be worked on?
My use-case is a form for running a warmup of APIs which requires calling a bunch of endpoints which is tedious to do manually.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: