A simple WF with a starting webhook
In test mode, I click “Execute WF” at bottom, call the http test-URL with data => OK
Then, I activate the WF on top right, I’m asked to save it, ok, it’s activated (green on top right)
Then I call the http production-URL, I get "“The requested webhook “POST 2/webhook/webhook” is not registered.”
Even having a look to similar questions, I can’t see why this can’t work, maybe a more precise documentation on this topic would be usefull no ? thanks !
The URL looks wrong 2/webhook/webhook
.
It should not start with /2
. It should start with /webhook
Hello jan, here are the elements :
- production url in UI : http://localhost:8002/webhook/2/webhook/webhook
- my curl calls : xxxxxx.com - xxx sex videos free hd porn Resources and Information. (via apache RP)
tcpdump on my n8n host :
> 8…POST /webhook/2/webhook/webhook HTTP/1.1 …
< HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
X-Powered-By: Express
{“code”:404,“message”:“The requested webhook “POST 2/webhook/webhook” is not registered.”,"sta…
so n8n reveives the good url when I post data
Is that really the URLs that get displayed on the Webhook-Node?
Here somebody else which had the same problem 1.5 weeks ago:
Plese see the prod url joined
Even in local it fails :
curl -i -X POST -H ‘Content-Type: application/json’ -d ‘{ “counter” : 467 }’ http://127.0.0.1:8002/webhook/2/webhook/webhook
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found X-Powered-By: Express Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://localhost:8080 Access-Control-Allow-Methods: GET, POST, OPTIONS, PUT, PATCH, DELETE Access-Control-Allow-Headers: Origin, X-Requested-With, Content-Type, Accept, sessionid Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8 Content-Length: 296 ETag: W/"128-FEKkfFC3rTmt6OuWTCPn2x/4b3I" Vary: Accept-Encoding Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 13:13:55 GMT Connection: keep-alive
{"code":404,"message":"The requested webhook \"POST 2/webhook/webhook\" is not registered.","stack":"ResponseError: The requested webhook \"POST 2/webhook/webhook\" is not registered.\n at ActiveWorkflowRunner.executeWebhook (/usr/lib/node_modules/n8n/dist/src/ActiveWorkflowRunner.js:55:19)"}
Thanks for you reply, I already use 0.76, i try to re-create my node and update to 0.78
Update and re-creation done
New production url :
So indeed no more numbers in it
Test-url OK
Production url KO
curl -H ‘Content-Type: application/json’ -d ‘{ “counter” : 467 }’ http://localhost:8002/webhook/myWebHook
{“code”:404,“message”:“The requested webhook "POST myWebHook" is not registered.”,“stack”:“ResponseError: The requested webhook "POST myWebHook" is not registered.\n at ActiveWorkflowRunner.executeWebhook (/usr/lib/node_modules/n8n/dist/src/ActiveWorkflowRunner.js:55:19)”}#
Hopeless …
Sorry can not understand that and not sure what could be wrong there. If I do exactly the same with the latest version.
- Create this node:
- Save workflow
- Activate workflow
- Call
curl -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{ "counter" : 467 }' http://localhost:5678/webhook/myWebHook
It works fine for me. Wonder what is different for you.
Thanks jan
Only your webhook : OK
Your webhook + function + http-request : OK
I replace my previous WF, strange behavior (context, etc … ?) and this wrong interpretation of the url with “POST” in it (same thing with wget -d)
Let’s forget it
Really happy to hear that it works now.
Have fun!
If I may chime in, I believe the issue is when you have an existing flow created with previous versions (in my case, docker 0.71.0) and you upgrade N8N to a new version.
In essence, you can reproduce the prod hook issue like below (I am using docker, but should apply to other install types):
- Install old version of N8N (e.g. 0.71.0)
- Create a simple webhook node/flow (save but don’t activate it yet)
- Upgrade N8N to a more recent version (e.g. 0.76.0)
- Now activate the flow, test prod hook and you’ll see the error occur
I believe the resolution is to delete just the webhook node and recreate it.
Thanks a lot @major7x!
It is true that there was some webhook behavior change in a recent version, that should not cause any problems. Is however possible (therefor the “should” in the previous sentence) that in some edge-cases (do not know which) this causes problems anyway. In that cases doing exactly what you said would be the best thing to do.