Hi guys, nice job with new n8n version, really cool
Describe the issue/error/question
I’m trying to get some photos attachment from a gmail account and send in a telegram private channel.
All the flow works well, but when it has to send the telegram photo it behave in a non deterministic way, same input value may works or rise an error.
What is the error message (if any)?
ERROR: UNKNOWN ERROR - check the detailed error for more information
data should be a string, Buffer or Uint8Array
Cause
Data below may contain sensitive information. Proceed with caution when sharing.
{
"cause": {
},
"error": {
},
"options": {
}
}
Stack
NodeApiError: UNKNOWN ERROR - check the detailed error for more information
at Object.apiRequest (/usr/local/lib/node_modules/n8n/node_modules/n8n-nodes-base/dist/nodes/Telegram/GenericFunctions.js:84:15)
at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:93:5)
at async Object.execute (/usr/local/lib/node_modules/n8n/node_modules/n8n-nodes-base/dist/nodes/Telegram/Telegram.node.js:1835:36)
at async /usr/local/lib/node_modules/n8n/node_modules/n8n-core/dist/src/WorkflowExecute.js:447:47
Please share the workflow
Share the output returned by the last node
Information on your n8n setup
n8n version: 0.158.0
Database you’re using (default: SQLite): Postgres
Running n8n with the execution process [own(default), main]:
Running n8n via [Docker, npm, n8n.cloud, desktop app]: Docker
Thanks @MutedJam for the quick reply!
I have a node before the telegram ones that take care of filtering all the mail without attachment.
It’s output is always 2 items with attachments
Thanks! And are both items passed on to the node from your screenshot valid photo files? You can check this in n8n on the binary tab of the previous Function node:
Many thanks! I was now able to reproduce this (took me a while to get my ancient phone to register with Telegram). From playing around with this, it seems the presence of the Disable Notification field is the culprit here.
Could you try removing it by clicking the bin icon next to it and let me know whether you can confirm the same (not just disabling the option, actually removing the field)?
Yeah, this option should, of course, not break anything. I’ve added it to our internal bug tracker and we will, of course, let you know once this has been fixed.