An existing active hook is already present for this client

Follow

Andreas Huttenrauch

• March 04, 2015 00:22

I'm suddenly getting a bunch of errors from the API when trying to register hooks.

The error is:
PodioBadRequestError: "An existing active hook is already present for this client"
Request URL: http://api.podio.com/hook/app/7286881/

I have double checked, and there is NO existing hook for the URL's I am specifying.
For example, I have an existing hook to:
www.globimail.com?q=foo
and I'm trying to add a new hook for:
www.globimail.com?q=bar
and it fails.

This worked fine up to a few days ago.

What's changed? Why is this not working? How can I register my hooks? (and I DO need multiple hooks to the same domain and script with different GET parameters).

Please advise.
Thanks,
-Andreas

0

• 

  Sahil (Fusionmint)

  • March 04, 2015 12:47

  Same here, in-fact its not only different GET parameters but also for unique URL for different events for same app.

  So in our case, during first registration we can add hooks on an app with endpoint "http://domain.com/hook/123" for CREATE and UPDATE events and next time when we try to add hooks with endpoint "http://domain.com/hook/456" for CREATE and UPDATE events we get this message "An existing active hook is already present for this client". Strange!!!

  Something has really changed in the API layer that is causing this problem. Quick help on this is appreciated.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Christian Holm

  • March 04, 2015 13:50

  Hi. I did make a change just the other day because we were seeing tens of thousand of hooks created on the same apps. Naturally this causes an extreme amount of calls. All the URL's were unique, so that is not a good way for us to limit them.
  I initially changed the limit to one hook per type per client per app, but I have increased it to 10 earlier today. That being said, there really is no good reason for us having to notify you multiple times about the same event. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that you can take multiple actions on the same event. Right now you push that to our side, but you could do it as well, and we would need to do significantly fewer hook calls.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Sahil (Fusionmint)

  • March 04, 2015 14:01

  Thanks, that would help.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Christian Holm

  • March 04, 2015 14:04

  The increase to 10 hooks per app per type per client has been active since this morning.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Andreas Huttenrauch

  • March 04, 2015 16:43

  Thanks Christian,
  That should help a bit.
  It would really be nice to get a heads-up on API changes in advance. Our users don't like it at all when our systems suddenly stop working. It makes us look bad.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Christian Holm

  • March 04, 2015 16:44

  That is certainly understandable. We had to do this immediately because the thousand of hooks was causing significant problems for the system.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Andreas Huttenrauch

  • March 04, 2015 16:49

  I understand that all too well. However, we all know WHO was adding these thousands of hooks. You could have communicated with them and not just blanket penalize everyone else.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Christian Holm

  • March 04, 2015 16:56

  I was talking to them, but they were not responding. I should have limited it to just them, but I underestimated how many used multiple hooks on the same app. I still don't understand why you need it.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Andreas Huttenrauch

  • March 04, 2015 17:04

  In a perfect production world we wouldn't need multiple hooks, but we use them a fair bit when testing new functionality. It's an easy way to perform additional work on the same hooks without having to re-jig the whole core in certain situations. It's usually just temporary and get's moved into the main webhook eventually (or discarded if the experiment failed).

  0

  Comment actions Permalink
• 

  Christian Holm

  • March 04, 2015 17:07

  Understood. I am sorry this caused issue for you, that was never my intention. We generally try very hard to be 100% backwards compatible, but this one I screwed up on. Sorry.

  0

  Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.