Exploratory testing: all the spontaneous requests you might do with Postman.
Traditional testing: tests of any kind that are part of your codebase and CI pipelines. The data generated is part of test reports and can break builds in CI.
I think there is a gap between these 2 types of testing. There are valuable insights generated in Postman but they don't really give you consistent feedback like "normal" tests would. Yes, Postman does provide the Newman CLI tool but it still does not contribute to code coverage for example and it doesn't really fit into existing test tooling you might have in your project.
What's the point?
I think there is value in having a way to easily turn exploratory interactions into some kind of tests, this way you can hit the road more quickly and get to functionality that is working and verified. More testing can be added once required.
It can be easier to make sure that acceptance criteria of a ticket are met, sit down with your PO to figure out requirements and user flows and put them into Postman collections. Some tool then converts that into test cases in your codebase.
Similarly for technical consultants, communicating the situation that caused a bug could become simpler, handover to developer becomes more consistent. It could even be possible to create an MR with a generated test-case for the bug. The dev can pick up from there.
The job of mentoring junior devs could also be supported. Walk them through the functionality with Postman and then generate tests from that. The junior devs then have something tangible to support their work.
From my experience I think that there is substantial friction here that would justify an open-source solution.
I looked around the internet but did not find anything that fits the description.
Partially out of curiosity I started working on a tool that would fit the bill.
Does anybody know of any other project that has tackled this?