usebruno
Proposal for Enhanced Syntax to Access Request, Folder, and Collection Metadata in Bruno
Proposing a standardized syntax for accessing metadata and file attributes associated with requests, folders, and collections in Bruno.
Background
Please note that Bruno supports name of the request to be different from the name of the file. Same goes for folder name. This is in development and will be merged soon. Below is a video demo of the same
https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/bb71c207-8335-431e-b930-9552f7501b7f
PR: https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/pull/3094
Proposal
With that in mind, here is the proposed syntax for accessing request, folder and collection name.
Getting Request, Folder and Collection Name
This is stored in meta tag in bru lang and is what appears in the request name in the UI
Assume a file at /Users/john/payments-collection/folder/request.json
meta {
name: Custom Request Name
}
| Property Syntax | Output |
|---|---|
| req.name | Custom Request Name |
| req.folderName | folder |
| req.collectionName | payments-collection |
| Method Syntax | Output |
|---|---|
| req.getName() | Custom Request Name |
| req.getFolderName() | folder |
| req.getCollectionName() | payments-collection |
Getting Request File
Assume a file at /Users/john/payments-collection/folder/request.json
| Shorthand Syntax | Output |
|---|---|
| req.file.path.absolute | /Users/john/payments-collection/folder/request.json |
| req.file.path.relative | folder/request.json |
| req.file.name | request.json |
| req.file.basename | request |
| req.file.extname | json |
| req.file.dirname | folder |
| Method Syntax | Output |
|---|---|
| req.getFile().getAbsolutePath() | /Users/john/payments-collection/folder/request.json |
| req.getFile().getRelativePath() | folder/request.json |
| req.getFile().getName() | request.json |
| req.getFile().getBaseName() | request |
| req.getFile().getExtName() | json |
| req.getFile().getDirName() | folder |
Related Issues / PRs
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/pull/3298
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/pull/3094
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/issues/2064
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/issues/2480
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/issues/1874
- https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/discussions/3195
Hi @helloanoop and thank you for the proposal.
For me this seems reasonable, however I don't know all implications it may have.
Just to give one example: I might have a collection containing a structure like this
SomeFolder
- getItems
- getItem
SomeOtherFolder
- getItems
- getItem
For the current implementation, if I call bru.setNextRequest("getItem") in SomeOtherFolder/getItems, it will call SomeFolder/getItem.
In my opinion, this is not the expected behavior, as I would expect to prefer requests in the current folder instead of any other ones. Because of this behavior, in the runner, this leads to an endless loop as it always jumps back and forth. This belongs to a separate bug ticket for sure (not sure if I already opened one for this) but with Folder and Request Names not being the same as the file name it could get even a bit more complicated here.
Not trying to say this is getting worse with these proposals, but at least something we should keep in mind.
Generally I am a Fan of the concept of having Request Names and File names separated, and was wondering if this could even allow same Request Names within one collection. Let's say I have two variations of the same API Endpoint I am testing, I could give them a name like setMySampleRequestData (only title) and setMySampleRequestData (all fields), but honestly, as this name would be too long to display in the sidebar anyhow, and just reduces the number of the visible tabs, I could also just name both setMySampleRequestData without a visible difference in the name and have the file names like setMySampleRequestData-1 and setMySampleRequestData-2.
This however, to return to the previous challenge makes me think if we should hand over the file names or maybe even relative file paths to functions like bru.setNextRequest in order not to run into issues like the one mentioned above.
Hello everybody, as someone who is really looking forward for this feature being part of bruno I am wondering about the current status. The feature has been implemented at least partly (https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/pull/3298) but seems to have been abandoned afterwards (like this discussion). Is there anything one can do to push the developement?
Definitely need this; preferably a way to get the unique name (or ID) of the request. I have a need to re-run the same request poll until a response.status becomes a certain value. Postman can do this with setNextRequest(pm.info.requestId). Need a way to not only get the name of the Bruno request to be able to set it, but it must be unique so it doesn't break or loop with or similarly named requests in other folders. (eg every test folder has a request named "Teardown")
Parts of the requested features have been implemented and merged in the main branch: https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/pull/4590
