I’m the Product Lead of Flows and I want your feedback!

:wave: Hey Flow users!

I am the Product lead for Flows and am excited to be building the future of the product with this community.

This thread is your direct line to the Postman Flows team. Share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback here – we’re listening!

We’d love to hear your thoughts on:

  • What part of Flows do you like?
  • Do you like the Create with AI Block?
  • Does PostBot help you build flows faster?
  • What features do you want to see?
  • What blocks should be added or improved?
  • How do you use flows today?
  • Any integrations we should prioritize?

Your feedback will directly influence our roadmap and help us make Flows even more powerful for everyone.

The sky is the limit!
Tarrek

9 Likes

Hey folks :wave:t3:

@avionics-engineer-87, @docking-module-phy13, @robert.sp.86, @eng.baher77, @hbaran08, @jd-forem, @descent-module-arc10

Based on your previous feedback on the topics within the postman-flows tag - we would LOVE to hear your feedback about the current Postman Flows functionality :heart:

It will really help us to shape the overall feature and continue to offer a wonderful experience for so many Postman users. :trophy:

2 Likes

Hello,

As an analyst, I would like to make the following suggestion. We are working to run our test automation processes in flows. I think it would be a very useful feature to run the blocks in the area we select instead of pressing a single run button and running all the blocks. I would be very grateful if you could evaluate this.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely

Hüsnü BARAN

3 Likes

Hey @tbuck02, @sebastian.virlan, @atang-bamboo, @Artyomsv :wave:

Do you have any product based feedback you’d like to share that could help improve the current functionality?

This is the best place to share it as it’s going directly to the team who built this feature :heart:

1 Like

I absolutely love Flows, and I am starting to use it everywhere possible, especially for CI/CD in DevOps. Below are some of my suggestions and bug reports.

Feature Suggestions

  1. Where Used (Under Flow Details)
  • It would be helpful to see at a glance how many places a flow is used as a flow module in other flows.
  • When creating a new snapshot, it would be great to have an option to automatically update the snapshot version in all places where the module is currently used. This would eliminate the need to manually update versions in multiple flows.
  1. Select Option for Flow Module Inputs
  • Similar to the “Send Request” component, it would be convenient to have a direct “Select” option for module inputs. Currently, a separate select component is required, which adds unnecessary complexity.
  1. Support for Status Polling in Flows
  • Many API endpoints return statuses like “processing,” requiring repeated queries until the status changes. Currently, it is not possible to create such a flow in Postman because flows cannot trigger themselves.
  • While it is possible to insert a delay or loop before proceeding, this approach is unreliable since processing times can vary greatly.

Suggested Solution

  • Introduce a back-trigger component that allows a flow to send a signal to itself.
  • Alternatively, enable a “Send Request” component to be triggered by multiple input signals. With this functionality, users could connect an “if” block to check the status and trigger additional steps when conditions are met.

Bugs

  1. Group Resizing Issue
  • When selecting a version/snapshot for a flow module contained within a group, the group is sometimes incorrectly resized.
4 Likes

Feedback from Darren Kelly via LinkedIn

Here’s two very quick mini feature suggestions for you:

  1. When under the main settings for a Request, when editing Query or Body parameters, it would be good to be able have a “create variable” context menu item that creates a {{var}} for you in the 2nd value column quickly. I find myself copying the key name of the parameter and then pasting it in that 2nd value column wrapped in {{ }}}.
Example: Parameter key id_project gets variable {{id_project}}
  1. This one would be very useful. The ability to hide/show specific rows of variables in a Flow Request block so save space. Seems one can currently only choose to hide or show them all. One could also have a feature for hiding any variables that don’t currently have connected Ports.

3 Likes

And a bug that i keep running into.
This subflow, i can call from other flows, but in this particular flow i get the following error.

3 Likes

Another feature suggestion:

It would be great to be able to view the input to a node after a run, just as you can view the output of a node.

2 Likes

Hi @hbaran08

Appreciate the feedback!

We have thought about this problem quiet a bit and will hopefully have some improvements here in the coming months.

One question: What motivates the desire to only run a portion of your flow? Is it while you are building it easier to just test the new part of the flow?

Best,
Tarrek

1 Like

@twoday-kss

Great suggestion! We are thinking about how to improve our ports more generally, if you have any other feedback or suggestions please do let me know.

Tarrek

Hello again

First of all, thank you for caring about feedback.

If I give a very simple example, I think it would be healthier to run the test scenarios that I expect to succeed and fail separately. You may think that we can run them in separate streams, but seeing this situation in a single canvas makes it easier for both the developer and the analysis & test team.

We may also have integration processes with other companies, which many large companies do. Here, running the integrations separately in a single window will provide great convenience.

Best regards,

Hüsnü BARAN

Suggestion to Improve Debugging in Flow Modules

I frequently use flow modules, but debugging becomes challenging when one module calls another module, which then calls another, and so on. When something fails, it can be difficult to trace the issue.

Here are a couple of suggestions to improve debugging:


1. “Create as Scenario” Button in the Flow Module Components Toolbar

In the example below, a call to a flow module fails. It would be incredibly helpful to have an option to:

  • Take the current input values with which the module was called.
  • Automatically create a scenario for the module.
  • Open the module and provide a prompt to run it with the created scenario.

This feature would significantly streamline debugging and make it easier to replicate issues.


2. “Pause on This Block” for Flow Modules

Currently, the “Pause on this block” functionality only works for the top module. It would be great if this feature could also work within flow modules to allow more precise debugging at deeper levels.


3. Prefix Flow Name in Log Messages

When using the log component, it would be very useful if the flow name was prefixed to the message in the console. This would allow users to identify which flow module the log message originated from more easily.

1 Like

Bug in the For Loop Component

It appears there is an issue with how the for loop iterates over elements. Specifically, the first two items seem to be processed asynchronously.

Consider the following example:

Example Link

If you examine the console log messages, you’ll notice that the first two items are logged immediately, while the third item is logged as expected—10 seconds later.

@twoday-kss the link you shared is to your workspace? Can you share an embedded flow [1] instead? that would allow anyone you share the link with to see the flow vs having to invite people to your workspace.

Generally blocks execute when all of their inputs are ready/available.

[1] Share links to flows and embed flows in websites | Postman Docs

Thank for that - indeed this is working as designed. The inputs for the log block are ready immediately, so you’ll see all the items logged in quick succession, but on the delay path, each item will be delayed 10s. What are you trying to do?

Thank you for the response! I was initially confused by the immediate logging of the first two elements. However, if this is indeed how the log block is designed to work, then there’s no issue at all. What added to my confusion was the fact that the third element was logged after 10 seconds, which I thought was intentional. That’s where my misunderstanding came from.

Long saving time.

I experience long saving times for flows. It can take several minutes before a flow is successfully saved.

image

I’m having trouble using one flow as a module in another flow. The request block in the flow that I’m using as a module contains a body that contains the variable {{payload}}. Additionally, the pre-request script in the API request does a few data operations.

Remarkably, when I use it directly, the flow functions properly; but, when I use it as a module, the error is: Failed to parse body.

My object looks like

{
    "client_id": 1234,
    "hmac": "92c6",
    "payload": {
        "first_name": "J",
        "last_name": "Singh",
        "email": "[email protected]",
        "date_of_joining": "2024-05-20",
        "employee_id": "J-123",
        "role_id": "8df05228-b6f2-4fcb-bcef-f4sss4e8bbe",
        "phone_number": "+898717171",
        "reporting_manager_id": "27c40457-d8ba-4ef9-ssss-c69622229364"
    }
}


1 Like