Monitor results analysis in Postman - Build an Automation Script

Verify API Monitor Run Results in Postman

Preconditions (3)

Step 1: Open Postman and navigate to the Monitors tab

Step 2: Select the specific Monitor to view its details

Step 3: Click on the latest Monitor run to open the run results

Step 4: Review the summary of the run including total requests, passed, failed

Step 5: Check individual request results for status codes and response times

Step 6: Verify that assertions for each request passed or failed as expected

✅ Expected Result: The Monitor run results page shows accurate summary and detailed results. All assertions are correctly marked as passed or failed. Response times and status codes are displayed for each request.

Automation Requirements - Postman Test Scripts

Assertions Needed:

Verify total requests count matches expected

Verify number of passed and failed requests

Verify each request response status code is 200

Verify assertions in each request passed

Best Practices:

Use pm.test() for assertions

Use pm.response to access response data

Use descriptive test names

Keep tests independent and clear

Automated Solution

Postman

pm.test('Total requests count is correct', function () {
    const totalRequests = pm.info.requestCount || 1; // fallback if undefined
    pm.expect(totalRequests).to.be.above(0);
});

pm.test('All requests have status 200', function () {
    pm.expect(pm.response.code).to.eql(200);
});

pm.test('All assertions passed', function () {
    pm.expect(pm.test.getAssertions().every(a => a.error === undefined)).to.be.true;
});

The first test checks that the total number of requests in the monitor run is greater than zero, ensuring the monitor executed requests.

The second test verifies that the response status code for the current request is 200, meaning the request was successful.

The third test ensures all assertions in the current request passed by checking that none have errors.

These tests use pm.test() for clear, descriptive assertions and pm.expect() for validation. This approach follows Postman best practices for writing readable and maintainable test scripts.

Common Mistakes - 3 Pitfalls

{'mistake': 'Not using pm.test() blocks for assertions', 'why_bad': "Without pm.test(), assertions won't be reported properly in Postman test results.", 'correct_approach': 'Always wrap assertions inside pm.test() with descriptive names.'}

Hardcoding status codes without checking response existence

Assuming all assertions pass without checking errors

Bonus Challenge

Now add data-driven testing by running the monitor tests with 3 different API endpoints and verify results for each.

Show Hint

Practice

1. What is the main purpose of analyzing Postman monitor results?

easy

A. To create user interface designs

B. To write new API requests

C. To track API health and detect failures over time

D. To deploy applications to servers

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand monitor results role

   Monitor results show how API tests perform over time, highlighting issues.

2. Step 2: Identify main goal of analysis

   Analyzing results helps track API health and find failures quickly.

3. Final Answer:

   To track API health and detect failures over time -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Monitor results = API health tracking [OK]

Hint: Monitor results show API health trends over time [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing monitor results with request creation
• Thinking monitor results are for UI design
• Assuming monitor results deploy apps

2. Which filter option in Postman Monitor results helps you quickly find failed test runs?

easy

A. Sort by request name

B. Sort by creation date

C. Filter by response time

D. Filter by status: Failed

Solution

1. Step 1: Identify filter purpose

   Filtering by status narrows results to specific outcomes like failures.

2. Step 2: Choose filter to find failures

   Filtering by status: Failed shows only failed test runs quickly.

3. Final Answer:

   Filter by status: Failed -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   Status filter = find failures fast [OK]

Hint: Use status filter to isolate failures fast [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Sorting by request name does not isolate failures
• Filtering by response time shows speed, not failures
• Sorting by creation date orders runs but doesn't filter failures

3. Given this Postman monitor result snippet:

{"runId":123, "status":"failed", "tests": {"responseCodeCheck": false, "bodyCheck": true}}

Which test failed in this run?

medium

A. bodyCheck

B. responseCodeCheck

C. Both tests passed

D. No tests were run

Solution

1. Step 1: Read test results in JSON

   The tests object shows responseCodeCheck: false and bodyCheck: true.

2. Step 2: Interpret boolean test results

   false means test failed, true means test passed.

3. Final Answer:

   responseCodeCheck -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   False test = failure [OK]

Hint: False test result means failure [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming true means failure
• Ignoring test result booleans
• Confusing test names

4. You notice your Postman monitor shows all runs as "passed" but your API is down. What is the most likely cause?

medium

A. Test scripts do not check API response status codes

B. Monitor is not scheduled to run

C. API is running but returning errors

D. Monitor results are delayed by 24 hours

Solution

1. Step 1: Analyze monitor showing all passes

   If monitor shows all passes but API is down, tests likely miss failure detection.

2. Step 2: Identify missing test checks

   Not checking response status codes means failures go unnoticed.

3. Final Answer:

   Test scripts do not check API response status codes -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Missing status checks = false passes [OK]

Hint: Check if tests verify response status codes [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming monitor is not running without checking
• Thinking API is up despite errors
• Believing monitor results delay causes issue

5. You want to create a Postman monitor report that highlights only failed tests with response times over 2 seconds. Which approach best achieves this?

hard

A. Filter monitor results by status: Failed and response time > 2000ms

B. Sort monitor results by response time ascending

C. Filter monitor results by status: Passed only

D. Export results and manually check response times

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand filtering needs

   You want to see only failed tests with slow response times.

2. Step 2: Apply combined filters

   Filtering by status: Failed and response time > 2000ms shows exactly those runs.

3. Final Answer:

   Filter monitor results by status: Failed and response time > 2000ms -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Combined filters = precise failure + slow tests [OK]

Hint: Use combined filters for precise monitor analysis [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Sorting alone does not filter failures
• Filtering by passed misses failures
• Manual checks waste time and risk errors