Solved

Difference between 'Schedule Policy Exclude Entity' and 'Schedule Policy Delete Entity'?

  • 23 January 2024
  • 1 reply
  • 35 views

Badge +2

I am using API to remove a subclient from backup policy. Can anyone help me understand the difference between what the exclude and remove endpoint do?

icon

Best answer by Brian Bruno 23 January 2024, 22:42

View original

1 reply

Userlevel 5
Badge +12

Hi @Prashant Mall,

 

This is a good question.  After reviewing the documentation for the 2 API calls it was not obvious how they are different from each other.  I just tested both API’s in my lab (which is running Platform Release 2024 aka 11.34).  I tested the following 2 API’s against a Schedule Policy that has 2 clients associated:

 

POST Schedule Policy Exclude Entity - Executing this API against 1 of the 2 associated clients results in that client excluded from the schedule as the name suggests.  Specifically, if you go into the associations of that policy, you will see a Red X on the entity you just excluded.  This indicates that the client WAS associated, and then was later excluded.  This is opposed to the other entities that have no mark at all, suggesting they were never associated in the first place:

 

 

 

DELETE Schedule Policy Entity - Looking at the description as well as the supported Request Body, these 2 API’s appeared to be identical.  My assumption going into this test was that the association would simply be removed and left as an empty square, much like those others that were never previously associated.  However, after several rounds of testing, the API call is ‘succeeding’, however there is absolutely no change to the Schedule associations whatsoever.

 

My assumption is that the DELETE Schedule Policy Entity API is not working as expected (at least not in 11.34), however the POST Schedule Policy Exclude Entity does in fact remove the subclient association as you would expect.

 

I’ll discuss the matter of the DELETE API internally to see if we have a product issue here.

 

-Brian Bruno

Reply