getOrganizationDevicesAvailabilitiesChangeHistory broken?

sungod
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

getOrganizationDevicesAvailabilitiesChangeHistory broken?

With the deprecation and other issues affecting the getOrganizationDevicesStatuses endpoint, I'm finally getting round to redoing things to use getOrganizationDevicesAvailabilities and getOrganizationDevicesAvailabilitiesChangeHistory.

 

In testing, getOrganizationDevicesAvailabilitiesChangeHistory is returning out of time-bounds data, and what is returned looks weird...

 

Changes are returned that fall outside the bounds set by t0 t1, I'm using a one-day t0-t1 period in this instance.

 

Most 'changes' that are returned are not changes, i.e. old/new status value are the same.

 

This is from an org with a few hundred devices:

 

t0 2025-02-18T00:00:00Z

t1 2025-02-18T23:59:59.999999Z

 

old statusnew statustimestamp
offlineonline2025-02-16T08:01:00.121999Z
onlineonline2025-02-17T08:01:48.007999Z
onlineonline2025-02-18T08:02:06.424999Z

 

The first two changes are out of t0-t1 bounds, the second two changes are not changes. I'm sure there was no such offline-online change on 16th on every device on every network.

 

Almost every device returns a similar triplet

 

It seems the endpoint is mostly returning spurious/bad data.

 

I decided to try with other orgs. Overall, on three orgs the endpoint is returning only t0-t1 in-bounds data, on three it is behaving as above.

 

But even on the three orgs where only data for 18th is returned, it is mostly 'changes' from online to online, it's not a change, why is it there?

 

I really have no idea what, if any, data can be trusted from this endpoint. Is this expected behaviour? It is not as I expect from documentation.

 

Can anyone from Meraki check/comment on this? I can PM org IDs.

 

3 Replies 3
GreenMan
Meraki Employee
Meraki Employee

A case raised via Meraki Support would be the correct route for this kind of ask.

sungod
Kind of a big deal
Kind of a big deal

Yeah, I know, but support always start with "prove it" and a default position that it's my fault.

 

Before I go down that route, I'd first like to know if this is expected behaviour, and/or if others are not getting the same results.

 

Inderdeep
Kind of a big deal

If i have the laugh button here, i will give you multiple laugh kudos 🙂 

www.thenetworkdna.com
Get notified when there are additional replies to this discussion.