I’ve been seeing lots of this in my logs recently, that I have never seen before, anyone else noticed similar? Or is there some misconfiguration that has snuck in somewhere?
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx1 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx2 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx3 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx4 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx5 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx6 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx7 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx8 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx9 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx10 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx11 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx12 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx13 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx14 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
Blocked GET /workflow/xxxxxx15 for "TelegramBot (like TwitterBot)"
That is interesting, I have not seen that before. Which version of n8n is your ai-beta version using? We update the same image so you could be an old version or a newer version.
Can you confirm what the latest version is that you are using? We update the same tag so unless you are pulling the same image every night you could be on one of a few different versions. My ai-beta version on my self hosted install is currently built on 1.18.0
Perfect, So it won’t help but I have checked my log and I am not seeing the same messages so I think more information could be needed. It sounds like something or someone is trying to load the workflow though.
So this is expected when using services such as Telegram or Slack that might try to automatically access a URL shared in a chat to generate a preview (which would fail anyway for n8n as these URLs require a login).
I am not sure if this should be logged as INFO though. @netroy would it perhaps make sense to lower the logging level for these messages?