Hello guys. Tiny question. I was reading the docs but the mentioned solution does work for me. I have this mapping file

// mappings/MediaGallery/get-video-mapping.json
{
    "request": {
        "method": "GET",
        "urlPathTemplate": "/wiremock/media/library/video/{videoId}"
    },
    "response": {
        "status": 200,
        "bodyFileName": "MediaGallery/media-video-with-id.json",
        "headers": {
            "Content-Type": "application/json"
        }
    }
}

And a body response file

// __files/MediaGallery/media-video-with-id.json
{
    "one":  ${videoId},
    "two":  "${videoId}",
    "three":  {videoId},
    "four":  {{videoId}},
    "five":  "{videoId}",
    "six":  "{{videoId}}",
    "seven":  $.videoId,
    "eight":  {$.videoId},
    "nine":  ${$.videoId},
    "ten":  {{request.pathSegments.[1]}},
}

The variable doesn’t get replaced. No one of these combinations work. ¿What is the form to write a variable in my body response file? Thanks

Hi, could you let us know what version of wiremock you are using

Yes, the version is

3.2.0

Could you try adding the response template transformer:

"transformers" : [ "response-template" ]

{
  "request": {
    "method": "GET",
    "urlPathTemplate": "/wiremock/media/library/video/{videoId}"
  },
  "response": {
    "status": 200,
    "bodyFileName": "media-video-with-id.json",
    "headers": {
      "Content-Type": "application/json"
    },
    "transformers": [
      "response-template"
    ]
  }
}

Ok, and ¿what should be the correct form to call my variable?

{
    "one":  ${videoId},
    "two":  "${videoId}",
    "three":  {videoId},
    "four":  {{videoId}},
    "five":  "{videoId}",
    "six":  "{{videoId}}",
    "seven":  $.videoId,
    "eight":  {$.videoId},
    "nine":  ${$.videoId},
    "ten":  {{request.pathSegments.[1]}},
}

I would try this one:

"ten": "{{request.pathSegments.[4]}}"

Perfect, thanks a lot @Lee Turner 🙌

No worries at all

{{request.path.videoId}}

should also do the trick

Nice, I haven’t played around with path variables much. That is much better way to reference it

Addressing path variables by name is quite a recent addition. Late in the 3.x beta iirc.

@Tom I have just tried your option and it works perfectly. Thanks a lot, sorry for the delay (I didn’t read your message)