POST merakiAuthUsers returning "null" body

Solved
AL_9000
Conversationalist

POST merakiAuthUsers returning "null" body

Hi there!

 

I'm using the Meraki API in order to create guests access over some Wifi networks.

 

It works everytime, except that some time the response got a 201 status, but with "null" in the response body.

 

The response should always contains a body as described in your own API docs here : https://developer.cisco.com/meraki/api-v1/create-network-meraki-auth-user/

 

Can you reproduce the problem on your side or do you have any logs that goes on this way?

 

Thank you boys and girls.

 

Cheers.

1 Accepted Solution
AMP
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

As a workaround you can use the GET call to retrieve an accounts ID. But as mentioned before I would engage support as to why your getting a 201 with a null body.

Knowledge is power

View solution in original post

11 Replies 11
alemabrahao
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

How many API calls are you making? The Meraki Dashboard API is rate-limited to ten calls per second, per organization.

 

https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Other_Topics/Cisco_Meraki_Dashboard_API

I am not a Cisco Meraki employee. My suggestions are based on documentation of Meraki best practices and day-to-day experience.

Please, if this post was useful, leave your kudos and mark it as solved.
AMP
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

you would get a 429 response if you hit a rate limit

Knowledge is power
sungod
Kind of a big deal

This is a user forum, your post reads like it's addressed to Meraki, imo it's unlikely anyone at Meraki will investigate specifics based on a posting here.

 

As the response is 201 with no data, it conflicts with the API documentation. The best thing will be open a support case (via Dashboard) detailing call parameters and the problem with the endpoint intermittently giving a response that doesn't match documentation.

AMP
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

Is there an underlying concern here? If you get a 201 back you know its successful and the account was created.

Knowledge is power
sungod
Kind of a big deal

The documentation shows a successful response returns data, with elements not present in the request.

 

The created user ID for instance - which I think is required by other calls, for instance to delete the user.

 

If the call isn't returning that data, it's a clear error.

AMP
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

As a workaround you can use the GET call to retrieve an accounts ID. But as mentioned before I would engage support as to why your getting a 201 with a null body.

Knowledge is power
AL_9000
Conversationalist

Thank you all for responding 🙂

 

I was able to do the workarround as described in the accepted solution. It is not optimal, and I wanted to create a support case in the "dashboard" but I wasn't able to find out where this part is.

sungod
Kind of a big deal

Login to Dashboard for the organization.

 

Top right of screen there's a ? icon, click on it, in the drop-down list click on "Get help & cases"

 

There's a new "Support Center" page design now, assuming that's what you get, click the "API and webhooks" tile.

 

On the new page, click "Submit a case", fill in the details and click 'Submit'.

AL_9000
Conversationalist

I'm only able to report a new case related to "Licensing issue" unfortunately there 😕

AL_9000_0-1721028965452.png

 

sungod
Kind of a big deal

Odd, I get a list of networks and devices.

 

But it really doesn't matter, the list regularly doesn't have anything matching what I am opening a case about.

 

Just open the case, add a comment that it is only allowing you this option.

 

 

LaurentC
Comes here often

I recently opened a case regarding the "null" response to the user creation. Looks like any uppercase letter in the email creates this behaviour. Sending the email variable as email.lower() resolves the issue. Note that in all cases (sending uppercase letters or not), the resulting created user's email is always lowercase in the dashboard.

Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.