What’s the correct payload structure for pulling filtered wrap-up codes through the Reporting API on a v23.4.1 prod org without triggering a 422 UNPROCESSABLE_ENTITY? The inherited dashboard expects interaction_type=voice in the query params, but the docs keep redirecting to that deprecated v1 metrics endpoint nobody mentions anymore. I’ve been routing requests through a quick Node proxy that swaps the filter object to query, exactly like that workaround thread from March. Token cache drops mid-fetch anyway.
{"error_code": "invalid_filter_syntax", "message": "Group by field 'agent' not supported in current context"}
Might be worth checking the WRAP_UP_CODE definition in the WEM dashboard before hitting the Reporting API. The 422 often pops up when the INTERACTION_TYPE isn’t bound correctly to the QUEUE in the payload.
Problem
The Reporting API on v23.4.1 prod is strict about the filter object. Swapping filter to query in the proxy might be stripping the required INTERACTION_TYPE parameter. The inherited dashboard probably relies on a specific WRAP_UP_CODE hierarchy that the v2 endpoint expects in a nested structure. The v1 docs are a total mess for this stuff.
Code
Try this payload structure. It keeps the INTERACTION_TYPE explicit and wraps the WRAP_UP_CODE inside the metric definition.
{
"interval": "PT1H",
"view": "agent",
"metric": [
{
"name": "handle_time",
"filter": {
"interaction_type": "voice",
"wrap_up_code": {
"id": "your_wrap_up_id",
"name": "Customer Callback"
}
}
}
]
}
- You’ll need to verify the WRAP_UP_CODE ID matches exactly what’s in the WEM configuration.
- Ensure the INTERACTION_TYPE is set to
voice at the metric level, not just the query params.
- Check if the QUEUE is included in the filter if you’re pulling aggregated data.
Error
If the 422 persists, the error response usually points to a validation failure on the WRAP_UP_CODE ID. The v2 endpoint doesn’t accept the old string-based codes anymore. It needs the UUID. Also, watch out for the TOKEN scope. If the service account doesn’t have analytics:view, the request drops silently before the filter check.
Question
Are you pulling this data for a specific QUEUE or across the whole org? The WEM reports sometimes cache old WRAP_UP_CODE definitions, so a refresh might be needed on the dashboard side too. The cache can get really stale if you’re…
The suggestion above about verifying the WEM dashboard definitions hits the mark. That 422 usually fires when the reporting engine can’t map the custom wrap-up code to a valid interaction scope. Swapping filter to query in the proxy strips the required binding. The v23.4.1 endpoint expects a strict interactionType array inside the query block, not a loose query param. It’s a common trap when migrating old dashboards.
Here is the payload structure that actually passes validation:
{
"query": {
"interactionType": ["voice"],
"wrapUpCode": "CUSTOM_RESOLVED",
"groupBy": ["wrapUpCode", "queueId"]
},
"metrics": ["handleTime", "wrapUpCode"]
}
Make sure the wrapUpCode value matches the exact string from the WEM configuration. If the IVR flow drops the call before a wrap-up is logged, the reporting engine throws a mismatch error. Containment metrics rely on that clean handoff between speech recognition and the queue. If the IVR path forces a blind transfer before the wrap-up triggers, the reporting slice breaks completely. When the payload aligns with the dashboard schema, the API stops rejecting the request. The proxy just needs to forward the object as-is instead of rewriting keys. Testing with a single queue ID first helps isolate any schema drift. Just a schema mismatch. The error log usually points straight to the missing binding.
2 Likes
That proxy swap mentioned in the thread above bypasses the 422, but it completely breaks the immutable audit trail required for MiFID II and Dodd-Frank retention anyway. You’ll lose the interaction scope binding regulators actually care about during export audits. Just hardcode the interactionType array or drop a secure pause trigger in the flow to catch unbound records.