Webhook.site VS Hurl.dev

Webhook.site - Verify webhooks, outbound HTTP requests, or emails with a custom URL. A temporary URL and email address are always free. - Source: dev.to / 3 months ago

The automatic updates use webhooks from version control system platforms such as GitHub and GitLab. In this article, for correct working, the services should be deployed somewhere, like Cloud Platform Providers, but to keep things simple, we will do it on a local machine. You can create a webhook inside the repository’s settings section and get an idea of what information can be obtained from the webhook... - Source: dev.to / 4 months ago

While inspecting the content of a webhook payload can be useful (for example by forwarding the webhook to tools like webhook.site), developers also require the capability to receive incoming webhooks directly in the application running on their laptop. It is a matter of more effective testing that verifies the correct processing on the incoming events and the associated workflow that follows. - Source: dev.to / 5 months ago

The webhook fires natively from inside the site, it's Yith Subscription plugin. I can get the webhook out and see the information if I test on a place like webhook.site. Everything works fine there. Source: 5 months ago

With the Dockerfile written we can now start the docker containers, but first, you need to have a webhook URL to try this project. You can easily get a free one at https://webhook.site. Once it is done, create a file called .env at the root of the project, where the docker-compose.yaml file is present. Then, make sure to have similar content. - Source: dev.to / 9 months ago

You may be able to replace some of your curl+shell with Hurl — https://hurl.dev/#also-an-http-test-tool . - Source: Hacker News / about 2 months ago

I am currently looking for a solution to run automated tests on a sql website generator I am working on ( https://sql.ophir.dev ) I wanted to use hurl (https://hurl.dev/), but Bruno's UI seems to be useful while developing the tests... Has someone tried both ? Which is better for automated testing, including when the response type is html and not json? - Source: Hacker News / about 2 months ago

Shameless promotion: Hurl [1] is an Open Source cli using libcurl to run and tests HTTP requests with plain text! We use libcurl for the super reliability and top features (HTTP/3 for instance) and we've added little features like: - requests chaining, - capturing and passing data from a response to another request, - response tests (JSONPath, XPath, etc...) There is nice syntax sugar for resuesting... - Source: Hacker News / 3 months ago

- This too will suffer the same fate as the previous two and will gradually also adopt a busy, unworkable, confusing UI This is why I’ve started using Hurl because that doesn’t even have a UI. Bonus: can be kept in source control and run as part of CI/CD. https://www.communication-generation.com/enshitification/ https://hurl.dev/. - Source: Hacker News / 6 months ago

Testing our application is a matter of running npm run start:dev and making requests to it. To test it better I'll leave a Hurl file in the repository that you can use to test the API. You can run it using hurl --test ./collection.hurl. This will run all the tests and make sure that everything is working as expected. - Source: dev.to / 7 months ago