Yeah, I did they start off with JS shenanigans, including importing packages, which immediately makes me concerned I’m going to have to deal with JS packaging dumpster-fire. There’s then one line of CLI args, followed by even more JS boilerplate.
> in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test
I think the mismatch here is that Hurl is closer to being a http testing tool, not a load-testing tool, so most of these features are unnecessary.
> It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK.
Character for character, most of this is bog-standard http verbs, a url, and an html path string. The Jetbrain HTTP tool also sports very similar interface, and I believe there’s a VSCode plugin somewhere that does a similar thing.
Yeah, I did they start off with JS shenanigans, including importing packages, which immediately makes me concerned I’m going to have to deal with JS packaging dumpster-fire. There’s then one line of CLI args, followed by even more JS boilerplate.
> in order to simulate accurate real-world traffic, which you probably want when writing a load/performance test
I think the mismatch here is that Hurl is closer to being a http testing tool, not a load-testing tool, so most of these features are unnecessary.
> It has a unique syntax, and no other tool uses it, AFAIK.
Taking the example from the front page:
GET https://example.org
HTTP 200 [Captures] csrf_token: xpath "string(//meta[@name='_csrf_token']/@content)"
Character for character, most of this is bog-standard http verbs, a url, and an html path string. The Jetbrain HTTP tool also sports very similar interface, and I believe there’s a VSCode plugin somewhere that does a similar thing.