Reusable test scripts in Postman - Build an Automation Script

Verify user login API with reusable test scripts

Preconditions (3)

Step 1: Create a new Postman collection named 'User Authentication'

Step 2: Add a new request named 'Login' with POST method to https://api.example.com/login

Step 3: In the request body, add JSON with fields 'username' and 'password'

Step 4: Write a reusable test script in the collection's Tests tab to verify response status is 200

Step 5: Also verify the response JSON contains a 'token' field

Step 6: Save the reusable test script in the collection's Pre-request Scripts or Tests section

Step 7: Run the 'Login' request with valid credentials

Step 8: Observe that the reusable test script runs and validates the response

✅ Expected Result: The reusable test script runs after the 'Login' request and asserts the response status is 200 and the response contains a 'token' field, passing the test.

Automation Requirements - Postman

Assertions Needed:

Response status code is 200

Response JSON contains 'token' field

Best Practices:

Use collection-level test scripts for reuse

Avoid duplicating test code in individual requests

Use pm.expect assertions for clear validation

Keep test scripts simple and readable

Automated Solution

Postman

/* Collection-level Tests script in Postman */
pm.test('Response status is 200', () => {
    pm.response.to.have.status(200);
});
pm.test('Response has token field', () => {
    const jsonData = pm.response.json();
    pm.expect(jsonData).to.have.property('token');
});

This script is placed at the collection level so it runs after every request in the collection.

First, it checks if the response status code is 200, which means success.

Second, it parses the response JSON and checks if there is a 'token' property, which indicates a successful login.

Using collection-level scripts avoids repeating the same tests in every request, making maintenance easier.

Common Mistakes - 3 Pitfalls

Writing test scripts only in individual requests instead of collection level

Not checking response status before accessing JSON fields

Using console.log instead of pm.expect for assertions

Bonus Challenge

Now add data-driven testing by running the login request with 3 different sets of user credentials using Postman environment variables or data files.

Show Hint

Practice

1. What is the main benefit of using reusable test scripts in Postman?

easy

A. They save time and reduce errors by avoiding repeated code.

B. They make the tests run slower but more secure.

C. They require writing the same code multiple times.

D. They only work with GET requests.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the purpose of reusable scripts

   Reusable test scripts help avoid writing the same code repeatedly, which saves time and reduces mistakes.

2. Step 2: Identify the correct benefit

   Among the options, only saving time and reducing errors matches the purpose of reusable scripts.

3. Final Answer:

   They save time and reduce errors by avoiding repeated code. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Reusable scripts = save time and reduce errors [OK]

Hint: Reusable scripts avoid repeating code, saving time [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Thinking reusable scripts slow down tests
• Believing reusable scripts only work for GET requests
• Confusing reusable scripts with writing duplicate code

2. Which of the following is the correct way to define a reusable function in a Postman test script?

easy

A. func checkStatus() { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); }

B. def checkStatus() { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); }

C. checkStatus() => { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); }

D. function checkStatus() { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); }

Solution

1. Step 1: Recall JavaScript function syntax

   In Postman scripts, JavaScript functions are defined using the keyword function followed by the function name and parentheses.

2. Step 2: Identify the correct syntax

   function checkStatus() { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); } uses the correct JavaScript syntax. Options A, B, and C use invalid keywords or syntax not supported in JavaScript.

3. Final Answer:

   function checkStatus() { pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200)); } -> Option D

4. Quick Check:

   JavaScript function syntax = function name() {} [OK]

Hint: Use 'function' keyword to define reusable functions [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using Python or other language syntax like 'def'
• Using arrow function without assignment
• Using unsupported keywords like 'func'

3. Given the following Postman test script, what will be the output when the response status is 404?

function checkStatus() {
  pm.test('Status is 200', () => pm.response.to.have.status(200));
}

checkStatus();

medium

A. Test passes because the function runs without error.

B. Test fails because the response status is not 200.

C. Syntax error because function is not called correctly.

D. Test is skipped because status 404 is ignored.

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the test logic

   The function checkStatus runs a test that expects the response status to be 200.

2. Step 2: Analyze the response status

   The actual response status is 404, which does not match 200, so the test will fail.

3. Final Answer:

   Test fails because the response status is not 200. -> Option B

4. Quick Check:

   Expected 200, got 404 = test fails [OK]

Hint: Test passes only if response status matches expected [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Assuming function call causes syntax error
• Thinking test passes if function runs
• Believing 404 status is ignored automatically

4. You wrote this reusable test function in Postman but it does not run as expected:

function checkResponse() {
  pm.test('Response time is less than 200ms', () => {
    pm.expect(pm.response.responseTime).to.be.below(200);
  });
}

checkResponse

What is the error and how to fix it?

medium

A. Missing parentheses when calling the function; add () after checkResponse.

B. Incorrect assertion syntax; replace 'to.be.below' with 'to.be.lessThan'.

C. Function name is invalid; rename to 'check_response'.

D. Response time property is wrong; use 'pm.response.time' instead.

Solution

1. Step 1: Check function call syntax

   The function checkResponse is defined correctly but called without parentheses, so it does not execute.

2. Step 2: Fix the function call

   Adding parentheses () after checkResponse calls the function properly and runs the test.

3. Final Answer:

   Missing parentheses when calling the function; add () after checkResponse. -> Option A

4. Quick Check:

   Function call needs () to execute [OK]

Hint: Always add () to call functions in JavaScript [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Confusing assertion syntax with chai library
• Changing function names unnecessarily
• Using wrong response time property

5. You want to reuse a test that checks if a JSON response has a specific key with a non-empty value. Which reusable function correctly implements this in Postman?

hard

A. function checkKeyExists(key) {
pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => {
pm.expect(pm.response.json()[key]).to.exist;
});
}

B. function checkKeyExists(key) {
pm.test('Response has key', () => {
pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.include.key(key);
});
}

C. function checkKeyExists(key) {
pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => {
pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty;
});
}

D. function checkKeyExists(key) {
pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => {
pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.key(key).not.empty;
});
}

Solution

1. Step 1: Understand the requirement

   The function must check that the JSON response has the given key and that its value is not empty.

2. Step 2: Analyze each option

   function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty; }); } uses correct chai assertions: to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty which checks key existence and non-empty value.
   function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test('Response has key', () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.include.key(key); }); } uses incorrect assertion to.include.key which is invalid.
   function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()[key]).to.exist; }); } checks only existence but not if value is non-empty.
   function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.key(key).not.empty; }); } uses invalid chaining to.have.key(key).not.empty.

3. Final Answer:

   function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty; }); } -> Option C

4. Quick Check:

   Check key exists and not empty = function checkKeyExists(key) { pm.test(`Response has key ${key}`, () => { pm.expect(pm.response.json()).to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty; }); } [OK]

Hint: Use 'to.have.property(key).that.is.not.empty' for key and value check [OK]

Common Mistakes:

• Using invalid chai assertion methods
• Checking only key existence without value
• Incorrect chaining of assertions