Sorry for the newbie question, but the /api/v2/wfm/scheduling/assignments endpoint keeps returning a 400 Bad Request when I’m pushing shift templates via the Python SDK v2.14.
I keep calling the schedule profile a shift template by mistake, but the payload structure mirrors that workaround thread I bookmarked back in 2021 (link: community.genesys.cloud/t/wfm-timezone-drift-fix) regarding timezone drift. The console shows capacity syncing fine, but it’s still blocking the post. Here’s the exact JSON response before the gateway drops it:
The 400 Bad Request on /api/v2/wfm/scheduling/assignments usually hits because the shift object structure is missing the start and end ISO strings, or the assignmentDate doesn’t align with the shift window. The Python SDK v2.14 serializer sometimes drops the shift wrapper if you pass a flat dictionary to the client.
It’s better to construct the JSON payload manually before passing it to the client to avoid the SDK stripping required fields. The structure needs to look exactly like this:
The assignmentDate field expects a strict ISO 8601 date without time components like YYYY-MM-DD, but the shift.start and shift.end fields require full timestamps with the timezone offset. The SDK might be sending naive datetimes which causes the validation failure on the backend.
The schedule profile ID isn’t part of the assignment payload itself, you reference it in the schedule object if you are linking to a plan, but for a direct assignment push, the shift times are the hard requirement.
If you are pushing against a schedule object, the scheduleId field is required in the root payload, otherwise the API assumes an ad-hoc assignment. Check the response body for the specific field error, it usually lists shift.start as missing.
Fun one today. Think of the shift object as a box - the API needs both the box and what’s inside (start/end times). ’s on the right track, but the serializer often forgets to include the box itself, causing the 400.
The discussion around the shift object is absolutely correct - it’s a common oversight when working with the scheduling API, and the example payload provided is a good starting point. However, it’s worth adding a little nuance. The 400 error isn’t always about missing start and end times within the shift object itself. Often, the root cause is an incorrect assignmentDate format.
The API is quite strict about ISO 8601 date formatting - it expects YYYY-MM-DD specifically. A frequent error we’ve seen is including a timestamp on the assignmentDate, which the system won’t accept. It’s also important to remember that the assignmentDate needs to fall within the active scheduling horizon defined in your org settings. If you’re trying to schedule too far in the future, it’ll reject the payload. And, a less common edge case, double-check the user’s permissions - they need appropriate WFM scheduling rights.