Re: How to handle an AdWords failure: request one report, receive a different report

2016-08-22 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
Maybe same bug as we've been seeing? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/adwords-api/HiFhouYMcAg On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 2:46:02 PM UTC+2, AdWordsApiUser wrote: > > We're seeing something similar, where we're getting totally wrong data for > reports - something different from what we re

Query Report giving us someone else's data

2016-08-22 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
h the wrong number of columns, in the middle of the whole stream. We did not report this Friday cause we thought you find and fix this, but we are still seeing these right now. /Carl-Johan Kjellander -- -- =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~ Also find us on our blog and Google+:

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-13 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
No news yet? On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 6:58:43 AM UTC+2, Joyce Lava wrote: > > Hi Carl-Johan, > > As of the moment, there is no news yet. But I assure that will let you > know as soon as possible if there is any update. Will try to check on them > again by Friday. > > Thanks and Regards, > Jo

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-08 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
Any updates? Can the engineering team confirm the problems we have been having? /cjk On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 8:13:20 PM UTC+2, Joyce Lava wrote: > > Hi Carl-Johan, > > The engineering team is looking into the issue. If there is any update, we > will inform you as soon as possible. > > Regard

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-03 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
Excellent to hear! But given that the sunset for v201509 is in a few weeks, I think I have to implement a simple xml-parser that doesn't validate what we receive just so we can move up to v201603 before the deadline. Any hints on which direction you are leaning toward for a fix would be much ap

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-03 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
How is it going? Haven't heard from any of you for a few days. Have your tried diffing the v201509 and later XSDs? On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 1:37:34 AM UTC+2, Carl-Johan Kjellander wrote: > > We verified today that sending XML using the BatchJobOps.xsd works, the > none of the re

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-02 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
. And a sequence is a sequence, you can't change the order. On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:34:52 AM UTC+2, Carl-Johan Kjellander wrote: > > > https://developers.google.com/adwords/api/docs/guides/batch-jobs#supported_operations > > is where we found the links btw. At the ti

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-06-01 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
, June 1, 2016 at 2:51:54 AM UTC+2, Carl-Johan Kjellander wrote: > > I found it here: > > https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/cm/xsd/v201603/BatchJobOps.xsd > > The v201509 version of that xsd was linked from a migration guide that we > followed. > > I suggest doing a dif

Re: BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-05-31 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
I found it here: https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/cm/xsd/v201603/BatchJobOps.xsd The v201509 version of that xsd was linked from a migration guide that we followed. I suggest doing a diff between the xsd above and this one: https://adwords.google.com/api/adwords/cm/xsd/v201509/BatchJobOp

BatchJobService mutateResponse says it uses v201603 but the response seems to be v201509

2016-05-31 Thread Carl-Johan Kjellander
I am doing a new integration to the v201603 API and implementing what we need for the BatchJobService. However, I made a mistake and downloaded the mutateResponse and started trying to parse the XML but our parser only spat out errors, specifically on errorString. This is the message I got fro