We hard-coded the warehouse_id to the only warehouse we’re using. When the order is synced to Shiphero it went to the correct warehouse that we hard coded. Same as when we fulfill as when. The issue arose when we pull the shipment to our website it went to another warehouse that we no longer use.
What’s interesting is that Shiphero still deducted the quantity to the correct warehouse that we hardcoded for the order.
This is the warehouse we hard coded ( warehouse ID: 85256 - warehouse name: Poway) -
The order shows that it is fulfilled from Poway: Imgur: The magic of the Internet
The API result shows that it is assigned to the warehouse: Primary (Imgur: The magic of the Internet)
Hello @kristine! Welcome to our Community. Nice to have you with us!
I just wanted to let you know I started looking into this matter.
Can you share the order id you are referring to? It’s the number at the end of the URL when you are in the order page.
Have a nice day!
TomasFD
Hi Tomas,
The order ID is: 291892675. Thanks for getting back to me.
Best,
Kristine
Hey @kristine,
Thanks for hanging in there.
Could you try adding the id field under shipping_label in your query? The query would look something like this:
{
shipments(order_id: "291892675") {
request_id
complexity
data(first: 2) {
edges {
node {
id
profile
shipping_labels{
warehouse
id
}
line_items(first:5) {
edges {
node {
id
quantity
line_item{
sku
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
The id being returned is correct this way, but the issue is that the warehouse is not. I’ll pass this information along to our Engineering Team. In the meantime, adding the id field will help stop confusion.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help!
Best,
RayanP
Hi,
we will check to see if it helps anything. but we really need the shipment to be created in the same warehouse ID that we added to the order API because we’re only fulfilling from that warehouse only.
best,
Kristine
Hey @kristine,
Apologies, earlier I meant to include warehouse_id not id
I believe the shipment is being created in the same warehouse ID that you added. The identifier is displaying the incorrect warehouse (Primary). If you replace warehouse from the shipping_labels field with warehouse_id it will display the correct information.
It would look something like this:
{
shipments(order_id: "291892675") {
request_id
complexity
data(first: 2) {
edges {
node {
id
profile
shipping_labels{
warehouse_id
}
line_items(first:5) {
edges {
node {
id
quantity
line_item{
sku
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
When this query is run in your account warehouse_id returns 85256 which is correct I believe.
Again, sorry for the confusion here.
Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.
Best,
RayanP
Hi Ryan,
we still have the same issue after replacing the warehouse with the warehouse_id field. The warehouse in the shipment API still does not match the warehouse we choose to fulfill.
Hey Kristine,
Thanks for hanging in there.
While this issue makes its way to Engineering, I want to try and find you a work around. Would you mind sharing the response and request_id for the query you ran above?
Best,
RayanP
Hi RayanP,
I’ve attached the response and the request_id below.
“request_id”: “6316aeb6415cf0e5aee49c8e”
“order_id”: “294741971”
another one
“request_id”: “6316a216cac33f52e0855839”. the corresponding file is “response.txt”
(Attachment 6316aeb6415cf0e5aee49c8e.txt is missing)
(Attachment response.txt is missing)
Hey Kristine,
Are you using Automation Rules to lock your orders to 85256? The order that does display the correct warehouse_id with the query ran above is https://app.shiphero.com/dashboard/orders/details/291892675, and you can see here that an automation rule ran for that:
In the order that you used in your query, I noticed that the there was no automation rule triggered:
https://app.shiphero.com/dashboard/orders/details/294741971
The Lock Warehouse rule you made is currently not active. If this is set to active again then new orders should be locked to 85256 and the above query should work.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns!
Best,
RayanP
