Edit the transferred Object (using Property transfer) in SOAPUI

Question

I have the following test steps:

• GetDetails
• transferObject (Property transfer)
• Change Details

GetDetails outputs a JSON object as follows:

{
   "databaseId": 123,
   "databaseName": "Test",
   "address": "ON",
   "details":    {
        "detail_id": 999,
        "userId": 2,
        "date": null,
        "state": "active"
    },
   "itemName": "Bob details",
}

transferObject transfers this details object to ChangeDetails test step.

But now I want to modify the object (change the state property to non-active) before feeding it to ChangeDetails test case.

How can I do that? any suggestions?

Answer 1

I am not really sure how to achieve this using property transfer step as it appears to be data manipulation.

If it would be achieved, I would do this in the below fashion(Using script assertion) .

Have only two steps

• Get Details
• Change Details

Add a Script Assertion with the below code for Get Details step:

import groovy.json.*

//Read the response of GetDetails and filter details
def details = new JsonSlurper().parseText(context.response).details

//assert there is details available and not empty
assert details, "Details is empty or null in the response"

//Creating object to build the next step request
def json = new JsonBuilder()

//Building details object for Change
json.details {

  //looping thru each data
    details.each { key, value ->

      //Change state to inactive
      if ('state' == key) value = 'non-active'

      //add the properties inside details
      "$key"("$value")
    }
}

//Create a pretty print sting and this is going to be the next test step's request
def prettyJson = JsonOutput.prettyPrint(json.toString())

//Assign this data to a test step custom property, say REQUEST
context.testCase.setPropertyValue('REQUEST', prettyJson)

In the Change Details step, open request editor => have ${#TestCase#REQUEST}

Now run your test see if it is working as you needed.

Note: It is mentioned in the comment inactive, but it is mentioned in the question to be non-active - so kept the same in the reply. I think it is not really big deal in this case, I believe.