Hi all,
I'm running into a consistent, reproducible issue with the `Get Content Information (FTP)` activity (`irpa_core.ftp.getContentInformation()`) when used over SFTP. It works fine for root-level paths but silently fails for any nested path.
`getContentInformation()` returns the expected object for root-level files/folders, but returns `undefined` (no exception, no error) for any nested (multi-segment) path; whether it's a file or a folder, and regardless of path syntax (`./path`, `/path`, `path`, trailing slash, backslash, case variants, all tested).
await irpa_core.ftp.access("test.rebex.net", "demo", "password", 22, irpa_core.enums.typeFtp.sftp);
const rootInfo = await irpa_core.ftp.getContentInformation('pub'); // works fine
const nestedInfo = await irpa_core.ftp.getContentInformation('pub/example'); // undefined
const nestedFile = await irpa_core.ftp.getContentInformation('pub/example/readme.txt'); // undefined
irpa_core.ftp.close();Path | Depth | Exists? | Result |
| pub | 1 | Yes (folder) | Full Object |
| readme.txt | 1 | Yes (file) | Full Object |
| pub/example | 2 | Yes (folder) | undefined |
| pub/example/readme.txt | 2 | Yes (file) | undefined |
| pub/example/doesnotexist.txt | 2 | No | _xstat: No such file: pub/example/doesnotexist.txt |
The invalid nested path (`doesnotexist.txt`) correctly throws `_xstat: No such file: ...`. This proves the path is being built and sent to the server correctly, and the server-side stat call runs fine. So the failure isn't in path resolution; it looks like when the remote `stat` call for a nested path *succeeds*, the client fails to parse/return that response and resolves `undefined` instead.
SAP's own docs use a nested path in the sample code:
const ftpContentInfo = await irpa_core.ftp.getContentInformation('./dir/folder1/text1.txt');
This exact pattern fails identically in my testing, so it doesn't seem to be a usage mistake on my end.
Has anyone else seen this? Is there a supported way to get file info for a nested path over SFTP, or is the download-then-check-locally approach the expected workaround right now? Or worse, am I doing something obviously wrong?
Thanks!
Request clarification before answering.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 |
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.