mux-node-sdk icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
mux-node-sdk copied to clipboard

Published 20 hours ago • verified publisher icon muxinc

Allow webhook creation via API

Open ananth-racherla opened this issue 6 years ago • 7 comments

Any chance you could support creation of a Webhook via a new API given client id & secret?

Or perhaps an API to verify that a webhook exists for the given client?

ananth-racherla avatar Sep 18 '18 14:09 ananth-racherla

Hey @ananth-racherla - this is a great idea, but at this time we haven't made these management APIs public within our API. We certainly want to, and will in the future, but there's some work we need to do on our backend before we can support this feature at the Node SDK level.

We'll update this issue as we make progress with this issue, but at this time the only way to create/manage webhooks is through our dashboard UI at https://dashboard.mux.com.

jsanford8 avatar Sep 19 '18 15:09 jsanford8

Just a note, this has recently come up for me a few times as well. We'll revisit this again at the beginning of next year.

mmcc avatar Dec 23 '18 19:12 mmcc

Any news here ?

iamvajid avatar Feb 21 '21 01:02 iamvajid

@iamvajid no updates on this yet

dylanjha avatar Feb 22 '21 19:02 dylanjha

Was really hoping for this to enable us to use Mux in our terraform setup...

cwqt avatar Jun 13 '21 21:06 cwqt

Any updates so far? Would be a really helpful feature

michielswaanen avatar Aug 05 '21 07:08 michielswaanen

@michielswaanen there are currently no updates on this feature

aminamos avatar Aug 05 '21 21:08 aminamos

This is a feature request for Mux the platform, not specific to this SDK so I'm going to go ahead and close this. I very much would still like to see the Mux platform support this and I've brought this up again with our internal teams.

dylanjha avatar Feb 12 '24 20:02 dylanjha

I've transitioned away from using MUX for some time now, and I've noticed that this response, after 6 years, doesn't quite address the ongoing issue. I'm curious why it seems to be overlooked or not given priority. Perhaps a more effective approach would be to implement it first in your internal systems, then in the JS SDK, and finally close the issue as completed.

cwqt avatar Feb 13 '24 12:02 cwqt

I totally agree that taking 6 years to close this was a bad look, that's on us. This one also kills me because I personally desperately want the functionality in our API, but unfortunately it's just not on any short-to-mid-term roadmap.

Unfortunately there's no issue or bug here from the SDK's perspective, it's correctly reflecting the features of the API. Semantically you're right, though, this one should probably have been closed as "not planned" instead of "completed"?

mmcc avatar Feb 13 '24 19:02 mmcc

Adjusting the closed status to "not planned" to more accurately reflect that it was not resolved/completed at this time.

The feature itself is still very much something we want to do, and when the Mux API does support this at some time in the future, then we can add it to the SDK.

dylanjha avatar Feb 14 '24 03:02 dylanjha