[saialekhya-001]

What / Why

PoC to enable showing a per-request-execution time breakdown in performance runs — the same HTTP phase waterfall the single-request view shows (Prepare / Socket Init / DNS / TCP / SSL / TTFB / Download / Process) plus prerequest/test script execution time. Runtime already emits the HTTP timing offsets; it did not surface how long user scripts take. This adds that.

Change

lib/runner/extensions/event.command.js — around host.execute() in the script execution path:

• Stamp result.executionTime (ms) on the script result before the script trigger fires.
• Prefer the sandbox's own in-sandbox measure result.return.executionTime (added in companion [postman-sandbox PoC PR]) — it excludes host↔sandbox bridge/IPC and host-side queue wait, so it's a tighter, steadier number.
• Fall back to a host wall-clock measure around host.execute() when the sandbox doesn't provide one → safe with an unpatched sandbox.
• Also attaches result.executionTimeWall for PoC comparison (in-sandbox vs wall). To be removed before productionization.

Measured (2 VUs, local)

	in-sandbox	host wall-clock	bridge+queue gap
rec0	39 ms	63 ms	24 ms
rec1	47 ms	61 ms	14 ms
rec2	53 ms	55 ms	2 ms

In-sandbox is consistently lower and less jittery → the right source.

Companion changes

• postman-sandbox: adds execution.return.executionTime (in-sandbox duration).
• postman-performance-test: consumes result.executionTime + the HTTP phase breakdown per execution.

Status

Draft / PoC. Not productionized: wall-clock comparison field is temporary; based on recent develop.

Generated with Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 71.42857% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 77.71%. Comparing base (6b4c942) to head (def386a).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
lib/runner/extensions/event.command.js	71.42%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (34.14%) is below the target coverage (35.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #1573      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    77.72%   77.71%   -0.02%     
===========================================
  Files           51       51              
  Lines         4369     4376       +7     
  Branches      1234     1238       +4     
===========================================
+ Hits          3396     3401       +5     
  Misses         730      730              
- Partials       243      245       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	68.98% <71.42%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
legacy	34.14% <57.14%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unit	47.00% <42.85%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.