Happy New Year. I will open a ticket on my team and have someone take a look at it. It might be a little bit as the team is still coming back from the Holiday break and wrapping up the Sprint, but I will chat with them and see if we can get it on the backlog for the next Sprint.
Thanks,
John Carnell
Director, Developer Engagement
I think something is going on with the API and I am contacting the API team.
Are you removing all ownerIds or just 1?
When you "remove" the IDs are you completely removing the owner attribute or setting it to an empty array?
What version of the provider you are working with? I am using 1.56.1
With 1.56.1 can successfully remove owner IDs by setting the ownersId attribute=[]. (I do not get the owners
removed if I remove the attribute.
The reason I think it might be a problem with the APis is if I completely remove the owners field in the PUT then the API will not remove any of the owners. If you set the owners attribute in the API to an empty array it will trigger the API to remove the fields.
I just got validation back from the API team. If you are explicitly removing all members or owners ids you need to explicitly set the field to be an array. Otherwise, our provider automatically removes NULL fields and the API will see this and ignore the field changes.
The group's API is extremely old and is slated to be replaced. So try this and let me know if you still have issues. I am going to update the documentation for this resource to make this explicit.
We were attempting to remove all owners by setting the parameter to an empty array: []
For a bit of background, this is because we are hitting the "100 Group Owner" limit, which is constantly showing up in our alerts.
We will try again with the latest version, but for now, we went with a workaround of setting different owners for different Groups so that we don't keep running into the Operational Console limit.
I was able to reproduce the error. I had several conversations with the API owners as their handling of empty arrays on a PUT is a little different than what it should be. However, it is an ancient API and in the process of being rewritten.
I think we have an idea of how we can fix it. I have added this ticket to our next Sprint which starts in two weeks. I will ask them to update this forum post when it has been fixed.
Thanks,
John Carnell
Director, Developer Engagement