Skip to content

Conversation

@mustansir14
Copy link
Contributor

Description:

The PR adds response_id and response_name to the Postman source's metadata protos and captures these fields from the response item.

Checklist:

  • Tests passing (make test-community)?
  • Lint passing (make lint this requires golangci-lint)?

@mustansir14 mustansir14 requested a review from a team November 17, 2025 07:27
@mustansir14 mustansir14 requested review from a team as code owners November 17, 2025 07:27
Comment on lines 684 to +685
m.FullID = response.Uid
m.ResponseID = response.Uid
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

response.Uid is already being stored in m.FullID field. Could you help me understand the reason behind storing the same value in another field, i.e., m.ResponseID?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the pattern that has been used all over this source. For example, see for request ID.

FulID is supposed to contain the ID for the item (whatever it may be, request, response, folder etc) while the specific fields like RequestID and ResponseID are supposed to contain IDs of these specific items.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To add to @mustansir14's comment, FullID isn't present in the proto definition of Postman either, and is being used internally to form the full Link to the postman item so the response ID and name doesn't actually make its way outside of the code.

@kashifkhan0771 kashifkhan0771 requested a review from a team as a code owner November 25, 2025 07:33
@mustansir14 mustansir14 merged commit 21211a0 into trufflesecurity:main Dec 2, 2025
13 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants