3 ms·

There's also dot-http[0] which aims to provide a similar interface to what IntelliJ's requests feature has. I've used it a few times. It's a shame development h

by gizdan 5y ago

There's also dot-http[0] which aims to provide a similar interface to what IntelliJ's requests feature has. I've used it a few times. It's a shame development has died, so hopefully Hurl can take its place. [0] https://github.com/bayne/dot-http https://github.com/bayne/dot-http

tikkabhuna 5y ago
When I saw this I was thinking of IntelliJ's HTTP client[1]. I hope that a standardised format can come out of this. [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/http-client-in-product-code-editor.html#composing-http-requests https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/http-client-in-product-c...
- jicea 5y ago
  Yes, we began to work on Hurl three years ago and the file format was "accidentaly" close to IntelliJ's HTTP file format. For the request part, it's not a coincidence since Hurl and IntelliJ's HTTP looks like "bare" HTTP format. They differ drastically on the response tests. We keep working on Hurl because our main goal is to be able to easily run integration tests on a CI or locally in a terminal, which can be difficult with IntelliJ. But yes, this shows that is really a need for such a tool. For reference, IntelliJ format: GET https://httpbin.org/status/200 > {% client.test("Request executed successfully", function() { client.assert(response.status === 200, "Response status is not 200"); }); %} ### Failed test: check response status is 200 GET https://httpbin.org/status/404 > {% client.test("Request executed successfully", function() { client.assert(response.status === 200, "Response status is not 200"); }); %}
  - tikkabhuna 5y ago
    > We keep working on Hurl because our main goal is to be able to easily run integration tests on a CI or locally in a terminal, which can be difficult with IntelliJ. I completely agree with this. Its pushed me away from using IntelliJ's feature. I will always prefer a tool that can be built into a CI pipeline over one that has handy IDE integration.
    - brabel 5y ago
      The Jetbrains format can also be run from the CLI or CI: https://renatoathaydes.github.io/rawhttp/rawhttp-modules/req-in-edit.html https://renatoathaydes.github.io/rawhttp/rawhttp-modules/req...
- bredren 5y ago
  Me too. I attempted to migrate to using this tool in Pycharm, (I have often used Paw for this kind of thing) but it felt a bit unfinished last year. Do you use it as part of a web dev workflow?
  - jayteee 5y ago
    I work in the same team as the two authors and we use it on a pretty large project : an online shop, and a few other smaller ones. We run hurl tests on every branch of our projects, via Gitlab pipelines. We test both HTML and JSON endpoints and those integration tests are a good safety belt.

by gizdan 5y ago

tikkabhuna 5y ago

When I saw this I was thinking of IntelliJ's HTTP client[1]. I hope that a standardised format can come out of this. [1] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/http-client-in-product-code-editor.html#composing-http-requests https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/http-client-in-product-c...

jicea 5y ago
Yes, we began to work on Hurl three years ago and the file format was "accidentaly" close to IntelliJ's HTTP file format. For the request part, it's not a coincidence since Hurl and IntelliJ's HTTP looks like "bare" HTTP format. They differ drastically on the response tests. We keep working on Hurl because our main goal is to be able to easily run integration tests on a CI or locally in a terminal, which can be difficult with IntelliJ. But yes, this shows that is really a need for such a tool. For reference, IntelliJ format: GET https://httpbin.org/status/200 > {% client.test("Request executed successfully", function() { client.assert(response.status === 200, "Response status is not 200"); }); %} ### Failed test: check response status is 200 GET https://httpbin.org/status/404 > {% client.test("Request executed successfully", function() { client.assert(response.status === 200, "Response status is not 200"); }); %}
- tikkabhuna 5y ago
  > We keep working on Hurl because our main goal is to be able to easily run integration tests on a CI or locally in a terminal, which can be difficult with IntelliJ. I completely agree with this. Its pushed me away from using IntelliJ's feature. I will always prefer a tool that can be built into a CI pipeline over one that has handy IDE integration.
  - brabel 5y ago
    The Jetbrains format can also be run from the CLI or CI: https://renatoathaydes.github.io/rawhttp/rawhttp-modules/req-in-edit.html https://renatoathaydes.github.io/rawhttp/rawhttp-modules/req...
bredren 5y ago
Me too. I attempted to migrate to using this tool in Pycharm, (I have often used Paw for this kind of thing) but it felt a bit unfinished last year. Do you use it as part of a web dev workflow?
- jayteee 5y ago
  I work in the same team as the two authors and we use it on a pretty large project : an online shop, and a few other smaller ones. We run hurl tests on every branch of our projects, via Gitlab pipelines. We test both HTML and JSON endpoints and those integration tests are a good safety belt.