Webhook GET method - how are you using this, and where does the response go?

  • 12 March 2024
  • 7 replies
  • 99 views

Userlevel 5
Badge +12

In the ‘Rules Engine’ there are various places to use webhooks. One of the methods is GET - but I have yet to figure out why the GET method is even here since the response doesn’t seem to be accessible.

Anyone here using GET in a webhook - are you doing anything useful with it, or know how to use/access the response within iiQ?

I have used the POST method to push data places or send Google Chat messages, but I’m not finding any documentation about GET webhooks here on the community.


7 replies

Userlevel 1
Badge +1

Hey Joey,

Hope you are doing well! 

After speaking with the Development Team regarding this, I was able to confirm that unfortunately at this time the response of the webhook is unable to be viewed within Incident IQ, but this shouldn’t prevent the Webhook from making any changes in the system the Webhook is being sent to if the system is looking for a GET webhook to make a change. With GET and POST webhooks, you are correct that for a majority of these Webhooks that the GET method retrieves information while the POST method usually sends information to another system to make a change; however, the GET method can also be used to make changes in other systems if the API is set up that way. As an example, I do know of one district who is currently using a GET webhook with rules to send information to Mosyle once assets are assigned or unassigned. 

Best Regards,
Drew

Userlevel 5
Badge +12

Thanks, Drew.

Do you know if there are plans to store responses for use within iiQ? I can see many perks to this where an official integration doesn’t exist, but the Rules Engine could easily help us accomplish simple tasks where we just need data parsed from a webhook response.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the detailed response you’ve provided!

Userlevel 1
Badge +1

Hey Joey, 

Unfortunately at this time, I am not aware of any enhancements in progress that would allow the response to be seen from Incident IQ, but I do agree that this would be a terrific idea and would expand the use of GET method webhooks greatly. I went ahead and reached out to my Team though to see about about opening this as an idea in our Idea Exchange. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble though @jclark , would you be able to provide a bit more information on some use cases you can see where this added functionality would be beneficial? I think this information would be greatly beneficial to the Product team so I just wanted to see if you may have any in mind.

Best, 
Drew

Userlevel 7
Badge +12

@jclark Thank you for submitting your question to our community.😄 Unfortunately, this is not currently a feature, but you can submit your idea to our Idea Exchange here: https://community.incidentiq.com/topic/new 

Userlevel 7
Badge +12

Thanks @athaxton_iiQ for all that information! 😄

Userlevel 5
Badge +12

Hey Joey, 

Unfortunately at this time, I am not aware of any enhancements in progress that would allow the response to be seen from Incident IQ, but I do agree that this would be a terrific idea and would expand the use of GET method webhooks greatly. I went ahead and reached out to my Team though to see about about opening this as an idea in our Idea Exchange. If it wouldn’t be too much trouble though @jclark , would you be able to provide a bit more information on some use cases you can see where this added functionality would be beneficial? I think this information would be greatly beneficial to the Product team so I just wanted to see if you may have any in mind.

Best, 
Drew

 

Userlevel 5
Badge +12

For some reason my response is getting erased when I post it with the quoted text

 

Sure, @. Technically the response would be needed for GET or POST methods in any case, depending on what the endpoint supports, but for either assets or users - we could write webhooks to fetch information about either one from systems we do not integrate iiQ with, and use certain info as variables to send back out in another webhook.

I thought potentially doing a few simple things with iiQ’s webhook actions in rules would be faster than requesting an entire integration be built lol.

Chromebooks are a good example - we have a lot of LTE enabled Chromebooks, and Google Admin stores additional info like the MDN or ICCID, but those are only available through the telemetry API and not the directory API that the current Chromebook info comes in from. Those are the only two fields we currently have a need to capture for Chromebooks through the telemetry API. The thought is - if the field isn’t null, the ticket would go to Team A, otherwise, Team B - or something like that.

We could get pretty creative, given the flexibility.

Reply