Checking for new voicemail

43 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott McLeod

unread,
Aug 6, 2015, 3:40:20 PM8/6/15
to NetSapiens Developer Forum
Hi,

I'm trying to see if any subscribers have new voicemail.  Tried with a domain user using these parameters:

action=read
object=audio
type=vmail/new
domain=<domain>
user=<user>

and got an invalid scope error.  Got these parameters from the "Retrieve and Manage Voicemail" page in the dox but the audio reference does not even include a section for read.

Am I missing something or does the user, I'm using to make the request, need different permissions?

Thank you,
Scott

Chris Aaker

unread,
Aug 6, 2015, 4:19:50 PM8/6/15
to Scott McLeod, NetSapiens Developer Forum
Scott, 

Sorry for the confusion here, i think there was some mixup in the ideal way and what we have documented. Try using owner and owner_domain instead of user and domain. We have moved more to the user/domain terms and many objects will support both, but it seems the audio object is not that way. We will make that change to support both there too. 

Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NetSapiens Developer Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to netsapiens-develope...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Chris Aaker

Vice President of Engineering | NetSapiens Inc.

P.O. Box 8588 La Jolla, CA 92038

(P) 858.764.5226 (F) 858.208.4424

(E) caa...@netsapiens.com


Website | News | Events | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin


Scott McLeod

unread,
Aug 6, 2015, 4:36:27 PM8/6/15
to Chris Aaker, NetSapiens Developer Forum
Hi Chris,

Switched it to this: action=read&object=audio&owner=...&owner_domain=...&type=vmail/new

Still getting the 401 invalid scope, is there anything else I should check?

Thank you,
Scott

Chris Aaker

unread,
Aug 9, 2015, 1:51:03 PM8/9/15
to Scott McLeod, NetSapiens Developer Forum
Just an update for all following allowing, we did some more work off thread and found the answer. The given data was correct in this case, but the user's scope was actually "basic user" granting inadequate rights to view the data. 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages