Upload users to CRM based user list

Hi Opteo team!

I’ve been trying to upload users to a Customer Match user list but getting a weird response from Google. I’m able to create the user list and the offline user data job, but when uploading the users, the API responds with:

Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list., at operations[0].create.user_identifiers[0].external_user_id

The operation works from the UI without a problem, even with user lists created with this library.

When retrieving the user list, the upload key matches with what I’m sending. Here is how I’m using the library (google-ads-api v5.1.1, google-ads-node v4.0.2):

// This works
const userListResp = await customer.userLists.create([{
  name: "my-user-list",
  description: "Test Customer Match audience created by google-ads-api",
  membership_life_span: 15,
  crm_based_user_list: {
    upload_key_type: "CONTACT_INFO"
  },
}]);

// This works
const jobRequest = new services.CreateOfflineUserDataJobRequest({
  customer_id: ACCOUNT_ID,
  job: {
    type: "CUSTOMER_MATCH_USER_LIST",
    customer_match_user_list_metadata: { user_list:userListResp.results[0].resource_name },
  },
});
const jobResp = await customer.offlineUserDataJobs.createOfflineUserDataJob(jobRequest);

// Users
const user1 = common.UserData.create({
  user_identifiers: [
    common.UserIdentifier.create({address_info: common.OfflineUserAddressInfo.create({
      city: "San Francisco,
      postal_code: "94111",
      country_code: "US",
      hashed_first_name: hashIdentifier("First"),
      hashed_last_name: hashIdentifier("Name"),
    })}),
  ]
});

const user2 = common.UserData.create({
  user_identifiers: [
    common.UserIdentifier.create({hashed_email: hashIdentifier("[e-mail]")}) 
  ],
  
});

const user3 = common.UserData.create({
  user_identifiers: [
    common.UserIdentifier.create({hashed_phone_number: hashIdentifier("[phone]")})
  ],
});

const operations = [
  { create: user1 },
  { create: user2 },
  { create: user3 },
]

const operationsRequest = new services.AddOfflineUserDataJobOperationsRequest({
  resource_name: jobResp.resource_name,
  enable_partial_failure: true,
  operations 
});

// This doesn't work
const operationsResp = await customer.offlineUserDataJobs.addOfflineUserDataJobOperations(operationsRequest);
console.log(inspect(operationsResp, false, null));
if (operationsResp.partial_failure_error) {
  for (const detail of operationsResp.partial_failure_error.details) {
    console.log(detail.value.toString());
  }
  console.log(operationsResp.partial_failure_error.message);
}

The output is:

{ partial_failure_error:
   { details:
      [ { type_url:
           'type.googleapis.com/google.ads.googleads.v6.errors.GoogleAdsFailure',
          value:
           <Buffer ... > } ],
     code: 3,
     message:
      'Multiple errors in ‘details’. First error: Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list., at operations[0].create.user_identifiers[0].external_user_id' } }

Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list.

operations
create
user_identifiers
external_user_id

Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list.

operations
create
user_identifiers
external_user_id

Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list.

operations
create
user_identifiers
external_user_id

Multiple errors in ‘details’. First error: Upload data is not compatible with the upload key type of the associated user list., at operations[0].create.user_identifiers[0].external_user_id

Not sure where that external_user_id comes from, as is not set in the code or the types.

I’ll keep investigating, just wondering if there’s something obvious I’m doing wrong. Thank you so much!!

[wcoots]

@CarlosMecha @lushu The latest version of the API has been released under v5.2.0 of this library. Upgrading should hopefully fix your issue. If not then feel free to reopen this issue.

[wcoots]

@CarlosMecha Thankyou for your kind comments. On further inspection this appears to be a known issue and we are waiting on a fix in the node-js gapic library. Once this has been done we will release with the fix.