module function · N/https
requestSuitelet()
https.requestSuitelet(options)
Sends an HTTPS request to a Suitelet and returns the response.
- Implementation
- Not started
- Design
- Open for proposals suggest how it should read
A
suitescript api
1https.requestSuitelet({2 scriptId: /* string, required */,3 body: /* string | Object, optional */,4 headers: /* Object, optional */,5 method: /* string, optional */,6 urlParams: /* Object, optional */7});
| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| options.scriptId | string | required | The script ID of the script record. |
| options.body | string | Object | optional | The body content to send in the HTTPS request. Only the PUT, POST, and PATCH https.Method values support this parameter; all other methods ignore it. |
| options.headers | Object | optional | The HTTPS headers. |
| options.method | string | optional | The HTTPS request method. Use https.Method to set this value. The default value is GET if options.body is not specified, and POST if options.body is specified. |
| options.urlParams | Object | optional | Parameters to be appended to the target URL as a query string. |
B
mynt syntax
No Mynt syntax yet.
Nothing in the language compiles to https.requestSuitelet(options) today. How should it read?
C
community proposals
Competing syntax for requestSuitelet, from GitHub Discussions. Select two or more to compare them side by side.
Loading proposals from GitHub…
D
suggest an alternative
Write the Mynt you wish you could write.
A good proposal shows the syntax, the SuiteScript it should become, and argues for it: why it is clearer, how it fits the rest of the language, what it makes harder.
- Clarity. Does it say what happens, without ceremony?
- Consistency. Does it read like
load,saveandRef[field]? - Expressiveness. Does it cover the cases people actually write?
- Honesty. Does it hide a NetSuite cost, such as governance, that a reader should see?