Gareth Cantrell Posted October 21 Posted October 21 When trying to delete an Inbound Routing Rule, the system raises the following error:
NeilWJ Posted October 21 Posted October 21 Hi Gareth, Fixed in upcoming build. For now if you just update the rule and set the rule action to disabled to ensure it does not run. Cheers 1
Lee C Posted November 9 Posted November 9 Hello Anyone know why it throws this error up when deleting an inbound email rule?
NeilWJ Posted November 11 Posted November 11 It's a defect. Fixed in beta, hopefully released this week. As per original post for now just disabled rules you don't want to be triggered. Cheers
jnovajosky Posted November 11 Posted November 11 This same error is appearing for Direct Outbound emails.
Gerry Posted November 11 Posted November 11 Just a quick explanation about these errors. Over the last year or so we have been transitioning away from XML moving towards a JSON native API stack. One of the consequences of that is, in XML, an array is implied by the properties of the XML Schema that defines the parameter type, whereas in JSON an array is explicitly different to a value. In XML representation, a single value can be treated as an array of the processing code is expecting an array, it will see the value as an array with one value. However, for JSON processing, a single value is distinctly different to an array of single values. The problem is, we are (ironically) working to improve the overall quality and reliability of our software by transitioning from the XML representation to JSON representation for our APIs (there are 1000's of them) and, in a small handful of cases we are discovering that code that is technically incorrect but working when using the XML representation is incorrect but does not work with JSON representation. We are doing our best to find these before they impact, but its a little bit like finding a needle in a haystack, and this is easily missed. I am hoping we can iron this out soon, as we start to recognise the pattern associated with this failure, we should be better adept at catching these before they show up in the field. There is no risk of data loss or corruption or anything like that, but we recognise its an annoyance for our customers when we do not find these before code is released. I apologise for that and will make sure our team are more sensitive, and looking for this particular pattern as I expect this will not be an uncommon problem under the hood. Thanks Gerry 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now