Builder content link
Builder public api key
We are using the builder.io webhook to automate using make.com the publication of new blog posts to other platforms.
I noticed that in the data field the field url has disappeared. Has this change be intentional?
Code stack you are integrating Builder with
Hi @vperrin, while we send the
url field with the
data object manually in the Content API, it may not persist with the webhook payload. A more reliable way to get the URL path is from the
query field which should exist by default in both the Content API and webhooks.
Hi @ancheetah ,
Thanks for getting back to me.
I’ve changed to use the query field now.
What is your versioning strategy for API changes to avoid breaking changes in the future.
@vperrin do you remember when this behavior started occurring? We make a best effort to not ship backward incompatible changes to any API. If there is an incompatible change that we have to push it will be because of a security issue or otherwise critical requirement. Any backward incompatible changes get released as a totally separate API. Customers will be notified in the case that we have to ship something out or they would have time to upgrade.
On the 16th the field was still available.
Hi @vperrin thank you for sharing that. To further investigate this can you tell me how you are deleting/unpublishing content? Is it from the UI, with the Write API, or some other method?
Publishing happened from the UI.
Thanks! We’ll look into it and I’ll let you know when I have an update
@vperrin it seems that for certain content, for example the one you describe above (content id
673c383d8e454eb7b953ea925813d3a1), you used the Write API with the content from Builder’s Query/Content API. Therefore the
url field in this content persists. If you make a change on that content (e.g. publish a space or text or something) then you should see the
url in the webhook response. Can you give that a try and let me know if it works?
Hi @ancheetah ,
If I understand correctly, the URL was present in 673c383d8e454eb7b953ea925813d3a1 because it was created with the content API, and it was present on creation?
That can definitely be an explanation, I’ll stick for using the URL field under the query field.
Thanks for having a look at it.
Yes that’s correct. And better to use the query field moving forward. Happy to help!