When I run my Postman monitor it says there are no tests available, even though I have created a single test in the request.
Is this referring to some other type of test?
Have attached both images
Postman monitor error
Developed test
I have the similar issue.
Monitor is an online feature and is only available in workspaces.
I suspect the workspace is in Postman so it has issues to invoke my company's network which is protected with firewall. I tried to turn on and off the proxy but still have the issues.
I feel the newman may work which needs more efforts to implement.
There are a few reasons. The reasons are mentioned well in official doc.
https://learning.postman.com/docs/monitoring-your-api/troubleshooting-monitors/
According to my experience, you should not define "pm.response.json()" command as globally, you need to define it in test function (pm.test()) because saved global variables are not supported in monitors.
Related
When I am calling an api with normal api calling in postman and running a test script and setting environment value, it's working but when I use that api in postman flow, environment doesn't changing.
Script in my test:
pm.environment.set('email', body.email)
Looks like you are looking for this issue from discussions section of Postman Flows repository:
https://github.com/postmanlabs/postman-flows/discussions/142. Here are some key points from it:
I want to begin by saying that nothing is wrong with environments or variables. They just work differently in Flows from how they used to work in the Collection Runner or the Request Tab.
Variables are not first-class citizens in Flows.
It was a difficult decision to break the existing pattern, but we firmly believe this is a necessary change as it would simplify problems for both us and users.
Environment works in a read-only mode, updates to the environment from scripts are not respected.
Also in this post they suggest:
We encourage using the connection to pipe data from one block to another, rather than using Globals/Environments, etc.
According to this post:
We do not supporting updating globals and environment using flows.
I don't know much about web development and cloud computing. From what I've read when using Cloud functions as the webhook service for dialogflow, you are limited to write code in just 1 source file. I would like to create a real complex dialogflow agent, so It would be handy to have an organized code structure to make the development easier.
I've recently discovered Cloud run which seems like it can also handle webhook requests and makes it possible to develop a complex code structure.
I don't want to use Cloud Run just because it is inconvenient to write everything in one file, but on the other hand it would be strange to have a cloud function with a single file with thousands of lines of code.
Is it possible to have multiple files in a single cloud function?
Is cloud run suitable for my problem? (create a complex dialogflow agent)
Is it possible to have multiple files in a single cloud function?
Yes. When you deploy to Google Cloud Functions you create a bundle with all your source files or have it pull from a source repository.
But Dialogflow only allows index.js and package.json in the Built-In Editor
For simplicity, the built-in code editor only allows you to edit those two files. But the built-in editor is mostly just meant for basic testing. If you're doing serious coding, you probably already have an environment you prefer to use to code and deploy that code.
Is Cloud Run suitable?
Certainly. The biggest thing Cloud Run will get you is complete control over your runtime environment, since you're specifying the details of that environment in addition to the code.
The biggest downside, however, is that you also have to determine details of that environment. Cloud Funcitons provide an HTTPS server without you having to worry about those details, as long as the rest of the environment is suitable.
What other options do I have?
Anywhere you want! Dialogflow only requires that your webhook
Be at a public address (ie - one that Google can resolve and reach)
Runs an HTTPS server at that address with a non-self-signed certificate
During testing, it is common to run it on your own machine via a tunnel such as ngrok, but this isn't a good idea in production. If you're already familiar with running an HTTPS server in another environment, and you wish to continue using that environment, you should be fine.
I'm adding to an open source project that uses in this case some Azure cloud functionality, but the same general problem is applicable for any cloud API. I want to write tests for my code, but the results of the test are reliant on something having happened in the cloud service I'm using, and in order for this to happen, I need to supply credentials to the cloud service. In a private project, I could certainly just add my cloud credentials to the testing environment, but for public/open source projects, I can't do this. I can test locally easily enough, but this project uses CI (as do many OSS projects), so this can't really be done.
One approach seems to be using mock or something similar, but that doesn't actually seem to test that things are happening as they should be, and strikes me as a mostly pointless method to achieve 100% coverage.
Are there any 'virtual test cloud' environments that can be spun up to create an identical interface to the cloud service in question, but only for testing? How do these deal with side effects (the code in question creates a DNS entry, and ideally would test for the actual existence of a DNS entry using the system's resolver rather than another cloud call)?
How do people do this kind of testing?
I start with a spike solution to learn how to pass the required credentials. With this knowledge, I can TDD an acceptance test to call a simple API and get a "success" result.
I exclude the credentials from my repository. Instead, I include a template file with instructions.
From there, I drop down to unit tests to TDD sending requests and receiving responses. I don't test actual communication with any service. Instead:
Test the contents of requests.
Create responses and test how they're handled. This makes it really easy to test all sorts of error conditions.
Once I've TDD'd credentials, requests, and responses, I use what I call a spike test to confirm that everything is in fact working. Basically, this uses non-automated confirmation in anything I can quickly hack together.
What should I do to profile worflows exposed as Windows Workflow services? Which tool did you use?
I have tried to use dotTrace (jetBrains): I can see data in the profiling snapshot, but it seems I cannot see methods called by workflows.
Depending on the information you want to get out of it you can use AppFabric. Once installed you can go into IIS and set monitoring to "Troubleshooting" and get back pretty much everything the workflow has done.
I have an application that sends messages to an external web service. I build and deploy this application using MSBuild and Cruisecontrol.NET. As CCNET build and deploys the app it also runs a set of test using NUnit. I'd now like to test the web service communication as well.
My idea is that as part of the build process a web service should be generated (based on the external web services WSDL) and deployed to the build servers local web server. All the web service should do is to receive the message and place it on the file system so I then can check it using ordinary NUnit for example. This would also make development easier as new developers would only have to run the build script and be up and running (not have to spend time to set up a connection to the third party service).
Are there any existing utilities out there that easily mock a web service based on a WSDL? Anyone done something similar using MSBuild?
Are there other ways of testing this scenario?
I just started looking into http://www.soapui.org/ and it seems like it will work nicely for testing web services.
Also, maybe look at adding an abstraction layer in your web service, each service call would directly call a testable method (outside of the web scope)? I just did this with a bigger project I'm working on, and it's testability is working nicely.
In general, a very good way to test things like this is to use mock objects.
At work, we use the product TypeMock to test things like Web Service communication and other outside dependencies. It costs money, so for that reason it may not be suitable for your needs, but I think it's a fantastic product. I can tell you from personal experience that it integrates very well with NUnit and CCNet.
It's got a really simple syntax where you basically say "when this method/property is called, I want you to return this value instead." It's great for testing things like network failures, files not being present, and of course, web services.
Take a look at NMock2. It's a open-source mocking product and allows you to create "virtual" implementations for interfaces that support rich and deep interaction.
For example, if your WS interface is called IService and has a Data GetData() method, you can create a mock that requires the method to be called once and returns a new Data object:
var testService = mockery.NewMock<IService>();
Expect
.Once
.On(testService)
.Method("GetService")
.WithNoArguments()
.Will(
Return.Value(new Data());
At the end of the test, call mockery.VerifyAllExpectationsHaveBeenMet() to assure that the GetData method was actually called.
P.S.: don't confuse the "NMock2" project with the "NMock RC2", which is also called "nmock2" on sourceforge. NMock2-the-project seems to have superseded NMock.
This might also be something - MockingBird. Look useful.
At my work place we are using Typemock and nUnit for our unit testing.