Value provided is invalid for action parameter [VAR] of type 'String'" instead












11















Seems like upcoming changes in Spring 19 are causing us issues with "AuraEnabled" methods. Since forever now, primitive types were sent from Aura to APEX as String only as explained here: https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/a/245733/42188.



While the change explained in the previous post is beneficial (parsing primitives), it breaks older setups (or older manage packages).



Let's assume you had a Lightning component sending a boolean value to an APEX method. The APEX signature would've look like



@AuraEnabled
public static string myMethod(String myBoolValue)


with the Aura call



var action= component.get("c.myMethod");
removeAction.setParams({
"myBoolValue": true
});


Since the boolean value sent by Aura is now correctly parsed as a bool (previously, it was sent as a string), APEX now returns a "Value provided is invalid for action parameter myBoolValue of type 'String'" instead" error for the same code.



From what we can see, that change isn't tied to a Critical Update.



While the "fix" is pretty simple (just change the apex signature to accept a bool instead), this isn't really an option for ISVs with multiple managed packages installed everywhere that will just "stop working" when the Spring 19 rollout will be completed.



Would it be possible for Salesforce to be backwards compatible ?
Seems like we won't be the only ones to have that issue and Salesforce isn't really known to introduce breaking changes (or at least, not force a breaking change).










share|improve this question









New contributor




Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    11















    Seems like upcoming changes in Spring 19 are causing us issues with "AuraEnabled" methods. Since forever now, primitive types were sent from Aura to APEX as String only as explained here: https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/a/245733/42188.



    While the change explained in the previous post is beneficial (parsing primitives), it breaks older setups (or older manage packages).



    Let's assume you had a Lightning component sending a boolean value to an APEX method. The APEX signature would've look like



    @AuraEnabled
    public static string myMethod(String myBoolValue)


    with the Aura call



    var action= component.get("c.myMethod");
    removeAction.setParams({
    "myBoolValue": true
    });


    Since the boolean value sent by Aura is now correctly parsed as a bool (previously, it was sent as a string), APEX now returns a "Value provided is invalid for action parameter myBoolValue of type 'String'" instead" error for the same code.



    From what we can see, that change isn't tied to a Critical Update.



    While the "fix" is pretty simple (just change the apex signature to accept a bool instead), this isn't really an option for ISVs with multiple managed packages installed everywhere that will just "stop working" when the Spring 19 rollout will be completed.



    Would it be possible for Salesforce to be backwards compatible ?
    Seems like we won't be the only ones to have that issue and Salesforce isn't really known to introduce breaking changes (or at least, not force a breaking change).










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      11












      11








      11


      4






      Seems like upcoming changes in Spring 19 are causing us issues with "AuraEnabled" methods. Since forever now, primitive types were sent from Aura to APEX as String only as explained here: https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/a/245733/42188.



      While the change explained in the previous post is beneficial (parsing primitives), it breaks older setups (or older manage packages).



      Let's assume you had a Lightning component sending a boolean value to an APEX method. The APEX signature would've look like



      @AuraEnabled
      public static string myMethod(String myBoolValue)


      with the Aura call



      var action= component.get("c.myMethod");
      removeAction.setParams({
      "myBoolValue": true
      });


      Since the boolean value sent by Aura is now correctly parsed as a bool (previously, it was sent as a string), APEX now returns a "Value provided is invalid for action parameter myBoolValue of type 'String'" instead" error for the same code.



      From what we can see, that change isn't tied to a Critical Update.



      While the "fix" is pretty simple (just change the apex signature to accept a bool instead), this isn't really an option for ISVs with multiple managed packages installed everywhere that will just "stop working" when the Spring 19 rollout will be completed.



      Would it be possible for Salesforce to be backwards compatible ?
      Seems like we won't be the only ones to have that issue and Salesforce isn't really known to introduce breaking changes (or at least, not force a breaking change).










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      Seems like upcoming changes in Spring 19 are causing us issues with "AuraEnabled" methods. Since forever now, primitive types were sent from Aura to APEX as String only as explained here: https://salesforce.stackexchange.com/a/245733/42188.



      While the change explained in the previous post is beneficial (parsing primitives), it breaks older setups (or older manage packages).



      Let's assume you had a Lightning component sending a boolean value to an APEX method. The APEX signature would've look like



      @AuraEnabled
      public static string myMethod(String myBoolValue)


      with the Aura call



      var action= component.get("c.myMethod");
      removeAction.setParams({
      "myBoolValue": true
      });


      Since the boolean value sent by Aura is now correctly parsed as a bool (previously, it was sent as a string), APEX now returns a "Value provided is invalid for action parameter myBoolValue of type 'String'" instead" error for the same code.



      From what we can see, that change isn't tied to a Critical Update.



      While the "fix" is pretty simple (just change the apex signature to accept a bool instead), this isn't really an option for ISVs with multiple managed packages installed everywhere that will just "stop working" when the Spring 19 rollout will be completed.



      Would it be possible for Salesforce to be backwards compatible ?
      Seems like we won't be the only ones to have that issue and Salesforce isn't really known to introduce breaking changes (or at least, not force a breaking change).







      apex lightning aura spring19






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago







      Andre Theriault













      New contributor




      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 5 hours ago









      Andre TheriaultAndre Theriault

      564




      564




      New contributor




      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Andre Theriault is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          Probably not, as there's no mention of this fix being "versioned" (meaning, dependent on the API version). Unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. The value should have been converted to a String in the JS code by the developer, or used JSON encoding, etc.



          Note that this bug is already being deployed, so it's too late to do anything about it from the Salesforce side. If you're an ISV, and in this position, you should be preparing a patch for your customers right now. This is one of the benefits of having an ISV status, is that you can patch the code without forcing your clients to individually upgrade.



          This is known as a Push Upgrade. You can conveniently and automatically push this update to your subscribers for a seamless experience. In the future, please consider the possible impacts of what happens if you're using a bug and what would happen if that bug was mysteriously fixed when you woke up one day.



          Ultimately, I suspect that this was not versioned so that ISVs wouldn't be put in a situation where they allowed the bug to persist and cause future headaches (imagine, you develop a new feature, update the API version, only to have this bug mysteriously appear). Forcing the fix now is designed to prevent future problems, so it's probably for the best.






          share|improve this answer
























          • I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          • @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

            – sfdcfox
            4 hours ago











          • Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "459"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          Andre Theriault is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f247438%2fvalue-provided-is-invalid-for-action-parameter-var-of-type-string-instead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4














          Probably not, as there's no mention of this fix being "versioned" (meaning, dependent on the API version). Unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. The value should have been converted to a String in the JS code by the developer, or used JSON encoding, etc.



          Note that this bug is already being deployed, so it's too late to do anything about it from the Salesforce side. If you're an ISV, and in this position, you should be preparing a patch for your customers right now. This is one of the benefits of having an ISV status, is that you can patch the code without forcing your clients to individually upgrade.



          This is known as a Push Upgrade. You can conveniently and automatically push this update to your subscribers for a seamless experience. In the future, please consider the possible impacts of what happens if you're using a bug and what would happen if that bug was mysteriously fixed when you woke up one day.



          Ultimately, I suspect that this was not versioned so that ISVs wouldn't be put in a situation where they allowed the bug to persist and cause future headaches (imagine, you develop a new feature, update the API version, only to have this bug mysteriously appear). Forcing the fix now is designed to prevent future problems, so it's probably for the best.






          share|improve this answer
























          • I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          • @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

            – sfdcfox
            4 hours ago











          • Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago


















          4














          Probably not, as there's no mention of this fix being "versioned" (meaning, dependent on the API version). Unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. The value should have been converted to a String in the JS code by the developer, or used JSON encoding, etc.



          Note that this bug is already being deployed, so it's too late to do anything about it from the Salesforce side. If you're an ISV, and in this position, you should be preparing a patch for your customers right now. This is one of the benefits of having an ISV status, is that you can patch the code without forcing your clients to individually upgrade.



          This is known as a Push Upgrade. You can conveniently and automatically push this update to your subscribers for a seamless experience. In the future, please consider the possible impacts of what happens if you're using a bug and what would happen if that bug was mysteriously fixed when you woke up one day.



          Ultimately, I suspect that this was not versioned so that ISVs wouldn't be put in a situation where they allowed the bug to persist and cause future headaches (imagine, you develop a new feature, update the API version, only to have this bug mysteriously appear). Forcing the fix now is designed to prevent future problems, so it's probably for the best.






          share|improve this answer
























          • I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          • @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

            – sfdcfox
            4 hours ago











          • Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago
















          4












          4








          4







          Probably not, as there's no mention of this fix being "versioned" (meaning, dependent on the API version). Unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. The value should have been converted to a String in the JS code by the developer, or used JSON encoding, etc.



          Note that this bug is already being deployed, so it's too late to do anything about it from the Salesforce side. If you're an ISV, and in this position, you should be preparing a patch for your customers right now. This is one of the benefits of having an ISV status, is that you can patch the code without forcing your clients to individually upgrade.



          This is known as a Push Upgrade. You can conveniently and automatically push this update to your subscribers for a seamless experience. In the future, please consider the possible impacts of what happens if you're using a bug and what would happen if that bug was mysteriously fixed when you woke up one day.



          Ultimately, I suspect that this was not versioned so that ISVs wouldn't be put in a situation where they allowed the bug to persist and cause future headaches (imagine, you develop a new feature, update the API version, only to have this bug mysteriously appear). Forcing the fix now is designed to prevent future problems, so it's probably for the best.






          share|improve this answer













          Probably not, as there's no mention of this fix being "versioned" (meaning, dependent on the API version). Unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. The value should have been converted to a String in the JS code by the developer, or used JSON encoding, etc.



          Note that this bug is already being deployed, so it's too late to do anything about it from the Salesforce side. If you're an ISV, and in this position, you should be preparing a patch for your customers right now. This is one of the benefits of having an ISV status, is that you can patch the code without forcing your clients to individually upgrade.



          This is known as a Push Upgrade. You can conveniently and automatically push this update to your subscribers for a seamless experience. In the future, please consider the possible impacts of what happens if you're using a bug and what would happen if that bug was mysteriously fixed when you woke up one day.



          Ultimately, I suspect that this was not versioned so that ISVs wouldn't be put in a situation where they allowed the bug to persist and cause future headaches (imagine, you develop a new feature, update the API version, only to have this bug mysteriously appear). Forcing the fix now is designed to prevent future problems, so it's probably for the best.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          sfdcfoxsfdcfox

          251k11193431




          251k11193431













          • I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          • @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

            – sfdcfox
            4 hours ago











          • Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago





















          • I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago













          • @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

            – sfdcfox
            4 hours ago











          • Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

            – Andre Theriault
            4 hours ago



















          I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

          – Andre Theriault
          4 hours ago







          I agree with you that the change is beneficial for the long run. Calling it "using a bug" is a bit far fetched since the auto-convert to string was well documented and well known for years now. It was a way to bypass a known limitation. Doesn't change the fact that we need to change it though. But we are in the process of deploying a patch. We hope to raise awareness with that post more than anything for others in the same situation.

          – Andre Theriault
          4 hours ago















          @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

          – sfdcfox
          4 hours ago





          @AndreTheriault I don't mean anything malicious by it, to be sure. I'm just saying that, as developers, we should be make sure our solutions won't readily break if the bug were fixed, rather than using the bug as a feature (in this case, automatic type coercion). On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reason why I'm always so paranoid about that is I've made similar mistakes while working around bugs as an ISV in the past--I've learned my lesson.

          – sfdcfox
          4 hours ago













          Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

          – Andre Theriault
          4 hours ago







          Totally agree, like you said, unfortunately, this is a case of using the wrong workaround for a Salesforce bug. Thanks for you input on this, much appreciated.

          – Andre Theriault
          4 hours ago












          Andre Theriault is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          Andre Theriault is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          Andre Theriault is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          Andre Theriault is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f247438%2fvalue-provided-is-invalid-for-action-parameter-var-of-type-string-instead%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

          How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

          TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'