API call returning HTML instead of JSON

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

we are trying to assign to a specific owner and team via api call...
I was expecting a JSON as response, while I'm getting an html response... with no relevant information and moreover without assign the request to the owner
what we are doing wrong?

[Keith Stevenson]

@Giuseppe Iannacone
Thanks for the post. Can you confirm the post URL in the image is what you tried.. If so that is wrong. Its supposed to be your instance endpoint / your instance ID 

Kind Regards

Hornbill Cloud 

[Steve G]

Hi @Giuseppe Iannacone,

Your URL is incorrect (specifically the api bit at the beginning, and the :yourinstanceid in the path), please see the Hornbill API documentation for more information on how this should be formed.

Cheers,

Steve

[SamS]

Hi @Giuseppe Iannacone,

Please confirm that you have actually placed your instance ID in the placeholder?

Secondly, the preferred payload is now JSON - see also https://wiki.hornbill.com/index.php?title=XMLMC_API_Quickstart

 

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve G @Keith Stevenson@SamS
in postman the sintax ":yourinstanceid" means you are defining a path variable (as far as I know), which of course I've defined to be our instance value. By the way, now I'm aware I'm using the wrong endpoint (Thank you @Steve G) so I suppose this will fix our issue.
Also on my last check I was aware xml was the officially supported and that you were in the middle of moving against the JSON payload, so Thank @SamS I'll give a look to the reference you have posted, and I'll get back with my findings!
Thanks all for the quick and precise advice.

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve G@Keith Stevenson@SamS

I've followed your direction and also downloaded the API template from the documentation, well the json payload is really welcome!!! By the way I'm still unable to assign the request to a specific user(at least the response is in json and yes the endpoint is pointing to our specific endpoint, copied from the support section):

[Steve Giller]

That doesn't look like correct response for the payload given.
You should get something like:
 

{
    "@status": true,
    "params": {
        "teamName": "TEAM",
        "ownerName": "OWNER"
    },
    "flowCodeDebugState": {
        "executionId": "2508a577-fdab-44ee-871c-e8f8abde6b55"
    }
}

Have you established a valid session first?

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve Giller
I expected the same, I believe the session is valid, or at least I have a status code 200.
how can i be sure to have a valid session?

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve Giller I've got which is the issue, I supposed the role I've assigned to the user was good enough to interact with the requests, but supposing is enough. In fact I've tried to do the same action via UI and got the answer, not enough authorization.
Can you please help me to understand how can I address the right role (just the minimum required to create/assign/interact with the requests IN/SR), I want this user to be able to manage all the requests we have, If I'm not wrong the user has to be part of the team that supports the service and the incident/service request user role or am I wrong?

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

I've added the user to a team that is supporting the service and got the expected response (thanks everyone for the support):

[Steve Giller]

1 hour ago, Giuseppe Iannacone said:

how can I address the right role (just the minimum required to create/assign/interact with the requests IN/SR)

That's not really something that can easily be addressed on the forums, as it would, with apologies for the predictable comment, simply rely on what you need them to do.
They would, as you've found, need to support each Service that they interact with.
They would also need Incident and Service Request Management roles (again, the level depending on what they need to do) and potentially Board Manager, email etc. for triggering related actions.

 

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve Giller Cristal Clear, thanks... let's say generally speacking if the user is able to complete an action from the GUI than this will also satisfy the API calls, right?

[Steve Giller]

43 minutes ago, Giuseppe Iannacone said:

generally speacking if the user is able to complete an action from the GUI than this will also satisfy the API calls, right?

That would seem to be a fair assumption, yes.

There are caveats, but that's a good generalisation.

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve Giller can you please help me to address the browse record?
my idea is to search the service manager if a request that matches the searchfilter criteria exists or not in my instance
I'm unable to understand how it wants the valus or the parameter.

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

14 hours ago, Giuseppe Iannacone said:

@Steve Giller can you please help me to address the browse record?
my idea is to search the service manager if a request that matches the searchfilter criteria exists or not in my instance
I'm unable to understand how it wants the valus or the parameter.

@Steve G @SamS @Keith Stevenson

[Steve Giller]

@Giuseppe Iannacone As the error states, the search filter "value" field needs to be an array - it can be an array with one entry, but it must be an array.

[Giuseppe Iannacone]

@Steve Giller thank you!