Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions

WFA 4.1 Duplicate Self Links in XML Response

coreywanless

We noticed that starting in the latest upgrade, 4.1, when you get a response from a workflow execution, the XML payload has multiple self links. When I analyze the output of the URL's provided they both come back with the same information.

 

The problem I have is that the source that we have calling WFA is not expecting multiple self links and is erroring out. We are looking at fixing that code, but I believe this was an oversight/bug in this release. 

 

Has anyone ran into this yet, and have a patch they received for it?

 

...
</jobStatus>
<atom:link rel="command-execution-arguments" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/executions/32133"/>
<atom:link rel="add" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs"/>
<atom:link rel="self" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs/32133"/>
<atom:link rel="list" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/jobs"/>
<atom:link rel="cancel" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs/32133/cancel"/>
<atom:link rel="out" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs/32133/plan/out"/>
<atom:link rel="reservation" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs/32133/reservation"/>
<atom:link rel="self" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/jobs/32133"/>
<atom:link rel="resume" href="https://wfa.my.server.local/rest/workflows/f506d96e-e839-4cd4-af55-4ed05722bbd2/jobs/32133/resume"/>
</job>

 
2 REPLIES 2

Re: WFA 4.1 Duplicate Self Links in XML Response

sinhaa

@coreywanless

 

That's interesting. Let me try myself. I'll update you.

 

sinhaa

If this post resolved your issue, help others by selecting ACCEPT AS SOLUTION or adding a KUDO.

Re: WFA 4.1 Duplicate Self Links in XML Response

MartinRohrbach

I've noticed that too and opened up a case for this. After about four weeks it was decided that it's not a bug and the case was closed. We were told to work around this in our application.

 

I still believe it's a bug. Sure, the link is slightly different, but if they do the same thing then why confuse the automation with two nodes with the same key?

 

 

Earn Rewards for Your Review!
GPI Review Banner
All Community Forums
Public