Boost Your Java Development Efficiency: Comparing Built-in API Testing Plugins for IntelliJ IDEA

Following the release of Apidog Fast Request on the IntelliJ IDEA plugin marketplace, many users have been curious about how it compares to IntelliJ IDEA’s built-in HTTP Client. In this article, we’ll provide a detailed side-by-side comparison to help you decide which API debugging tool best suits your needs.

What is HTTP Client?

The HTTP Client (commonly referred to as the Endpoints Tool Window) provides an aggregated view of client and server APIs within your project. Designed to streamline microservices development and backend-frontend communication, it provides an intuitive interface that also simplifies exploring third-party APIs, making API management more efficient for developers.

What is Apidog Fast Request？

Apidog Fast Request is a free IntelliJ IDEA plugin developed by the Apidog team, designed to streamline RESTful API testing directly within the development environment. With features like endpoint detection, quick debugging, automatic API documentation generation, and seamless integration with Apidog for real-time collaboration or OpenAPI file export, the plugin eliminates the need to switch between tools. By simplifying the API development process, it boosts productivity and provides developers with a more efficient workflow.

Apidog Fast Request vs. HTTP Client

Next, let’s delve into a detailed comparison of these two tools from multiple aspects. Both tools are composed of three primary modules: the endpoints list, the request initiation module, and the response parameter module.

Comparison: Endpoints List

Both the HTTP Client and Apidog Fast Request automatically scan and list the endpoints in your project. However, the HTTP Client organizes endpoints in a flat, path-based structure without hierarchical differentiation or endpoint names. While functional, this layout can become cluttered and challenging to navigate in projects with numerous endpoints.

In contrast, Apidog Fast Request employs a directory-based hierarchical structure, displaying both endpoint names and paths for greater clarity. It also includes color-coded labels to differentiate HTTP methods like GET, POST, and PUT, making it easier for users to quickly identify and access the information they need. This intuitive design significantly improves usability and efficiency.

Comparison: Endpoint Debugging

The endpoint debugging module in the HTTP Client provides only a simple manual input box where all request parameters need to be manually entered in code form. If you need to add or modify parameters, or apply more settings to them, you would have to input additional code, and in complex scenarios, potentially even copy the code to an external tool for debugging, making the operation quite cumbersome.

On the other hand, Apidog Fast Request separates the request method, request URL, and parameters, and clearly distinguishes between different types of parameters such as Query, Headers, Path, Body in a table format. If you need to debug another endpoint or modify/add parameters, you can simply click the plus sign for visual operations, making it more intuitive and convenient to use.

Comparison: Response Parameter

The HTTP Client displays all returned parameters in a single text box, showing them in plain text format, which can make it challenging to focus on key information when there is a large amount of content.

On the other hand, Apidog Fast Request separates the returned body and headers data, presenting headers parameters clearly in a table format, making the information more intuitive and readable. This layout improves the readability of the information returned by the endpoints, enhancing the overall debugging experience.

Comparison: OpenAPI File Generation

Both tools are capable of generating OpenAPI files, but the HTTP Client can only generate files for a single endpoint at a time. On the other hand, Apidog Fast Request not only supports generating files for individual endpoints but also offers project-level file generation. Additionally, it directly saves the generated files locally without the need for copying or additional steps, making it more convenient for projects with multiple endpoints.

By providing the option for project-level file generation, Apidog Fast Request streamlines the process for users working with multiple endpoints within a project, saving time and effort in managing OpenAPI documentation. This added functionality enhances the tool’s usability and efficiency for developers and teams working on complex projects with numerous endpoints.

Comparison: Compatibility

The HTTP Client is an additional feature available on IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate version, and it is not supported on the free Community Edition version. This means that to use this tool, users would need to use the paid version of the software. On the other hand, Apidog Fast Request is a completely free-to-use plugin that is compatible with both IntelliJ IDEA Community Edition and IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate.

The advantage of Apidog Fast Request being compatible with both versions of IntelliJ IDEA without any additional cost provides a more inclusive option for users who may be using the Community Edition or prefer not to upgrade to the Ultimate version for specific features. This compatibility and accessibility make Apidog Fast Request a versatile and cost-effective choice for developers across different versions of IntelliJ IDEA.

Comparison: Additional Features

Apart from basic debugging capabilities, the HTTP Client does not offer any additional features. On the other hand, Apidog Fast Request includes some features that enhance debugging efficiency.

Request History

Apidog Fast Request includes a “Request History” feature, allowing users to view the request history for individual endpoints as well as all endpoints. Users can easily view histories based on dates, providing convenient access to past requests.

Global Parameters

Apidog Fast Request also supports global parameters, allowing for unified modifications and references. For example, while the default setting for the port number is automatic detection, there may be cases where this detection is incorrect. In such instances, users can set manual parameters and globally reference them, eliminating the need to manually modify settings for each endpoint.

These additional features in Apidog Fast Request contribute to a more efficient and user-friendly debugging experience, offering enhanced functionalities beyond the basic debugging capabilities provided by the HTTP Client.

Function Comparison Summary

Conclusion

The choice between Apidog Fast Request and the HTTP Client depends on the user’s specific requirements and preferences. The HTTP Client provides basic HTTP request capabilities such as sending requests and viewing responses, while Apidog Fast Request enhances this by offering a more comprehensive and intuitive user interface with additional customization options like request history, request templates, and environment variables management, resulting in better usability.

For users needing comprehensive framework support for debugging, the HTTP Client would be the better choice. However, for those seeking a more flexible, powerful, and intuitive debugging tool, Apidog Fast Request may be the optimal choice.

原文链接：Boost Your Java Development Efficiency: Comparing Built-in API Testing Plugins for IntelliJ IDEA