feat: Converters support pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema #4856

thim81 · 2025-06-07T15:16:29Z

Description

The Bruno Converters package, already converts a number of Postman methods into Bruno methods.

This PR adds support for the very common methods:

pm.response.to.be.success;
pm.response.to.have.jsonBody();
pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema(schema,{unknownFormats: ["int32", "int64", "float", "double"]});

Jira

BEFORE

AFTER

Contribution Checklist:

The pull request only addresses one issue or adds one feature.
The pull request does not introduce any breaking changes
I have added screenshots or gifs to help explain the change if applicable.
I have read the contribution guidelines.
Create an issue and link to the pull request.

Note: Keeping the PR small and focused helps make it easier to review and merge. If you have multiple changes you want to make, please consider submitting them as separate pull requests.

Publishing to New Package Managers

Please see here for more information.

thim81 · 2025-06-07T19:11:09Z

Linked to #4857

helloanoop · 2025-06-08T15:24:01Z

@thim81 Can you also add the unit test cases here ?

thim81 · 2025-06-08T17:20:42Z

Hi @helloanoop

Offcourse, I ll have a look and try to add additional tests that cover the 3 new pm translations.

thim81 · 2025-06-08T21:12:56Z

hi @helloanoop

I added the requested unit tests, let me know if you have remarks or changes needed.

packages/bruno-converters/src/utils/jscode-shift-translator.js

sanish-bruno · 2025-06-09T09:11:43Z

packages/bruno-converters/src/utils/jscode-shift-translator.js

+    }
+  },
+
+  // pm.response.to.have.jsonBody → expect(res.getBody()).to.satisfy(u => Array.isArray(u) || (u !== null && typeof u === "object")


From the intelliSense i got to understand, pm.response.to.have.jsonBody can accept arguments too, i believe 90% of the people will be happy with just JsonBody(). also i couldn't find any extensive documentation on how postman handles those arguments. Let me know you thoughts on this!

pm.response.to.have.jsonBody()
pm.response.to.have.jsonBody(optionalExpectEqual:Object)
pm.response.to.have.jsonBody(optionalExpectPath:String)
pm.response.to.have.jsonBody(optionalExpectPath:String, optionalValue:*)

I was not aware of the jsonBody() function supporting arguments.

The PR handles only pm.response.to.have.jsonBody(), which was the case that Portman generates, which is why I'm doing this PR.

Do you want to me to extend the support for all the possible arguments? Or built in a detection in that case that fallbacks to the commenting out of the // pm.response.to.have.jsonBody(optionalExpectEqual:Object)?

hi @sanish-bruno

I did some browsing in the Postman documentation and github.
In their docs I did not found a clear explanations, but on Github there was an issue referenced.

Based on that, I added the support for the arguments (to my best knowledge of Chai) and added additional tests to validate the behaviour.

Hi, @thim81 Thanks for this. let me know when you push the latest changes

hi @sanish-bruno

I did some browsing in the Postman documentation and github. In their docs I did not found a clear explanations, but on Github there was an issue referenced.

Based on that, I added the support for the arguments (to my best knowledge of Chai) and added additional tests to validate the behaviour.

The changes have been pushed for pm.response.to.have.jsonBody()

@thim81 i couldn't find any related changes on last commit , Am i missing something here?

hi @sanish-bruno

I committed, but forgot to push the changes 🤦 . The PR should now be updated for pm.response.to.have.jsonBody()

Thanks @thim81 we are having an internal discussion on what should be the translations, like supporting jsonBody, jsonSchema, to make the translations more straight forward, will get back to you soon.

sanish-bruno · 2025-06-09T09:44:05Z

packages/bruno-converters/src/utils/jscode-shift-translator.js

+    }
+  },
+
+  // pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema → const tv4 = require("tv4"); expect(tv4.validate(res.getBody(), schema), tv4.error && tv4.error.message).to.be.true;


@thim81 when i searched online, i came to know that pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema accepts 2 arguments, second one is optional, from the quick glance it seems like, postman is using "ajv" under the hood to validate the jsonSchema, can we also use the same. i think ajv is available across our script runtimes just like tv4, probably will be easier for us to pass ajvOptions if any user explicitly using the second argument.

pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema(schema:Object)
pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema(schema:Object, ajvOptions:Object)

@helloanoop @maintainer-bruno @lohit-bruno @naman-bruno currently "ajv" is only available on developer mode, so the script will fail in safe mode if we adopt ajv, to be in parity with postman, we probably need to have "ajv", what should we do here?

Let me know, what the final suggestion will be: using Ajv or tv4?

I took tv4, because of it being mentioned in guides and not needing the developer mode.
Postman is indeed using Ajv behind the scenes: https://learning.postman.com/docs/tests-and-scripts/write-scripts/postman-sandbox-api-reference/#validate-response-data-with-a-json-schema
Changing the PR to switch to Ajv, should be straightforward to do.

…nd pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema logic

thim81 · 2025-06-12T19:34:46Z

hi @sanish-bruno

Is there any news on the tv4 <> AJV preference?
So I can update the PR accordingly.

sanishchirayath1 · 2025-06-13T05:45:30Z

hi @sanish-bruno

Is there any news on the tv4 <> AJV preference?
So I can update the PR accordingly.

@thim81 we will most likely be going with ajv, we plan to support jsonSchema, Json within chai using extensions, so that the translations can be easier and straight forward. We haven't yet started working on it. we will work on it soon. Once that PR is merged, I will ping here so that you can make necessary changes to the translation PR.

sanish-bruno · 2025-06-17T10:21:16Z

#2519 related

sanish-bruno · 2025-06-20T10:24:03Z

@thim81 sorry for the delay, we were facing some problems with making ajv work with quick-js cause for some regex compatability issues, we have raised a PR on quickjs-emscripten and waiting for it to get merged. or use a forked version. will update you once we make any progress.

thim81 · 2025-07-10T13:21:15Z

@sanish-bruno Any news on the item? I see that there conflicts on the PR, should I update them already or wait untill there is movement on the quickjs-emscripten PR?

sanish-bruno · 2025-07-10T13:39:34Z

@sanish-bruno Any news on the item? I see that there conflicts on the PR, should I update them already or wait untill there is movement on the quickjs-emscripten PR?

@thim81 i think it is better to wait until the quickjs-emscripten. We have been caught up with other issues. So we still haven't got the time to discuss this. I think, It is better to wait!

thim81 · 2025-09-13T09:51:11Z

hi @sanish-bruno

Is there any news or plans on this PR?

feat: convert pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema

9f4f921

thim81 requested review from helloanoop, lohit-bruno, maintainer-bruno and naman-bruno as code owners June 7, 2025 15:16

pull-request-size bot added the size/XS label Jun 7, 2025

feat: convert pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema

3a53f0a

pull-request-size bot added size/L and removed size/XS labels Jun 7, 2025

feat: convert pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema

1fde23e

thim81 mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2025

feat: Output as Bruno collection apideck-libraries/portman#696

Open

helloanoop requested a review from sanish-bruno June 8, 2025 15:24

thim81 added 2 commits June 8, 2025 23:09

feat: convert pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema

b378cd0

chore: Added unit tests

08a0bad

sanish-bruno suggested changes Jun 9, 2025

View reviewed changes

chore: Applied suggested changes to processTransformations function a…

c58e007

…nd pm.response.to.have.jsonSchema logic

thim81 requested a review from sanish-bruno June 9, 2025 11:02

chore: added support for arguments of pm.response.to.have.jsonBody();

442130c

feat: Converters support pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema #4856

Are you sure you want to change the base?

feat: Converters support pm methods: success, jsonBody, jsonSchema #4856

Uh oh!

Conversation

thim81 commented Jun 7, 2025 • edited by sreelakshmi-bruno Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Contribution Checklist:

Publishing to New Package Managers

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Jun 7, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

helloanoop commented Jun 8, 2025

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Jun 8, 2025

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Jun 8, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thim81 Jun 9, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

sanishchirayath1 commented Jun 13, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sanish-bruno commented Jun 17, 2025

Uh oh!

sanish-bruno commented Jun 20, 2025

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Jul 10, 2025

Uh oh!

sanish-bruno commented Jul 10, 2025

Uh oh!

thim81 commented Sep 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

thim81 commented Jun 7, 2025 •

edited by sreelakshmi-bruno

Loading

thim81 commented Jun 7, 2025 •

edited

Loading

thim81 Jun 9, 2025 •

edited

Loading

sanishchirayath1 commented Jun 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading