cognigy_python_sdk handles the branch creation flow differently than the docs suggest. We construct the payload with bot_id, parent_version, and merge_directive fields, then push it to /api/v2/bots/{botId}/branches. The library walks through the schema validation step by step, checking depth constraints first, then parent matrices. It throws a 409 Conflict when the limit hits five. We’ve tried wrapping the PUT request in an optimistic lock loop. The auto-diff calculation just bombs on nested nodes. Webhook callbacks never fire after that anyway.
The 409 hits because the GC bot API enforces a strict five-level depth on branch hierarchies. You’ll need to flatten the node tree before sending the PUT. Here’s a minimal repro that prunes the depth and handles the optimistic lock versioning properly:
# Maps to PUT /api/v2/bots/{botId}/branches/{branchId}
from purecloud_platform_client import PureCloudPlatformClientV2
client = PureCloudPlatformClientV2()
client.authenticate_client_credentials(scope=['bot:write'])
def push_branch(bot_id, branch_id, payload):
# strip nodes past depth 4 to bypass the 409
clean_nodes = [n for n in payload.get("nodes", []) if n.get("depth", 0) < 5]
payload["nodes"] = clean_nodes
api_instance = client.bots_api
opts = {"if_match": payload.get("version", "*")}
return api_instance.put_bot_branch(bot_id, branch_id, body=payload, opts=opts)
Don’t reuse the parent_version after a successful merge, the cache invalidates immediately and you’ll trigger another conflict. The merge_directive field expects REBASE or SQUASH, not a boolean flag. Are you passing the directive as a string or letting the SDK serialize it to a boolean? The Python SDK sometimes drops enum values if the type hint isn’t explicit.
Tried static versioning first, failed hard on the optimistic lock, then switched to a live GET right before the build since it’s the only way to clear the 409.
branch_data = client.bots.get_bots_branch(bot_id=bot_id, branch_id=branch_id)
payload['version'] = branch_data.version
client.bots.put_bots_branch(bot_id=bot_id, branch_id=branch_id, body=payload)
What breaks when two ETL jobs race that endpoint
Hello!
I have seen this race condition too - it’s rough. The version check is important, yes, but the GET before PUT isn’t enough if you’re updating often.
Have you tried setting If-Match: * header in the request? It ignores the version check, which can help with concurrent updates. Though - this may cause overwrites.
Here is the Terraform snippet for setting the headers. Maybe this helps?
resource "genesyscloud_web_deployment" "example" {
bot_id = "your_bot_id"
version = "1.0"
headers = {
"If-Match" = "*"
}
}
Also - can you tell me how often the ETL jobs run? If it’s very frequent, maybe you should look at throttling the requests. We had similar issues with user provisioning. What happens if you add a retry mechanism with exponential backoff? It may help with transient errors.
I’m just wondering - is the parent_version field correct in the payload? I think I saw a mistake on that one before.
Cause:
The optimistic locking issue-imo-isn’t the core problem. The 409 Conflict stems from hitting the depth limit before the version check even runs. That If-Match: * header suggestion is… risky, tbh. It disables versioning entirely, so you’ll absolutely get overwrites if two processes hit that endpoint concurrently. The API’s design is just poor; they should’ve returned a more specific error code for the depth constraint.
Solution:
You’re already fetching the branch data, which is good. Instead of blindly updating with the retrieved version, flatten the payload before sending. The depth check happens on the deserialized payload, not the version field. A recursive function to prune the nested structures before the PUT will sidestep the depth issue. Something like this-iirc-should work:
def flatten_branch_payload(payload, max_depth=5, current_depth=1):
if current_depth > max_depth:
return {} # Or raise an exception, whatever floats your boat
for k, v in payload.items():
if isinstance(v, dict):
payload[k] = flatten_branch_payload(v, max_depth, current_depth + 1)
return payload
Then call it before the PUT. Honestly, we’ve seen similar issues with the callflows API - the schema validation is aggressively strict.