No idea why this is happening, the Workforce Engagement Management (WEM) API is rejecting agent shift updates when triggered through a Genesys Cloud Architect Data Action, specifically resulting in a 400 Bad Request error with a detailed validation failure message. The integration is designed to sync availability changes from ServiceNow incident updates to Genesys Cloud WEM in real-time using a webhook payload that triggers a Data Action.
The flow successfully authenticates via OAuth 2.0 using a service account with the wfm:agent:manage scope. However, when the Data Action attempts to POST to /api/v2/wfm/scheduling/agents/{agentId}/shifts, the response indicates a mismatch in the expected payload structure for the availability field.
{
"code": "invalidRequest",
"message": "The request body could not be parsed as valid JSON or contains invalid fields.",
"errors": [
{
"code": "invalidValue",
"message": "The value for field 'availability' is not valid. Expected one of: [AVAILABLE, UNAVAILABLE, BUSY, INPAUSE]."
}
]
}
The ServiceNow webhook sends a standard JSON payload with the availability status mapped to string values like "available". The Data Action is configured to transform this into the uppercase enum values required by the WEM API. I have verified the transformation logic in the Architect flow, and debug logs show the payload being sent as { "availability": "AVAILABLE" }, which matches the schema.
From the Genesys Cloud WEM API documentation:
“The availability field must be one of the following enum values: AVAILABLE, UNAVAILABLE, BUSY, INPAUSE. Case sensitivity is enforced.”
Despite this, the 400 error persists. I have tried adding explicit content-type headers (application/json) in the Data Action configuration, but it makes no difference. The issue seems isolated to the shift update endpoint, as other WEM API calls (like fetching agent schedules) work correctly from the same service account. Has anyone encountered a hidden requirement for the shift update payload, such as a specific timezone format or an additional nested object structure that is not clearly documented? The environment is Genesys Cloud EU1, and the ServiceNow instance is on the Washington DC release. Any insights into potential payload formatting nuances would be appreciated.