You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm running into an issue with this tap. Let me give some context.
Another service (not tap-marketo) is using my Marketo's bulk API to extract information throughout the day. This means that the bulk API 'queue' is almost always full.
Unfortunately, the error code which is thrown when the queue is full is the same error code as when the API call limit for the day has been reached (error code 1029).
When this code is detected an exception is raised and the extraction exits. This behaviour seems odd in the case of a full queue as the queue is unlikely to stay full! It is not a fatal error! Surely, the behaviour which should occur is: if the queue is full, retry after an appropriate period or poll the queue until there is a free space and then the extraction should continue.
Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this. Is this an oversight? Or intended behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm running into an issue with this tap. Let me give some context.
Another service (not tap-marketo) is using my Marketo's bulk API to extract information throughout the day. This means that the bulk API 'queue' is almost always full.
Unfortunately, the error code which is thrown when the queue is full is the same error code as when the API call limit for the day has been reached (error code 1029).
When this code is detected an exception is raised and the extraction exits. This behaviour seems odd in the case of a full queue as the queue is unlikely to stay full! It is not a fatal error! Surely, the behaviour which should occur is: if the queue is full, retry after an appropriate period or poll the queue until there is a free space and then the extraction should continue.
Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this. Is this an oversight? Or intended behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: