Undefined `list-multi`, `reminder`, `opportunity-multi` field types in response

[joscha]

This is currently failing with

pydantic_core._pydantic_core.ValidationError: 2 validation errors for list[ListEntryWithEntity]
0.person.entity.fields.6.value
  Input tag 'note' found using 'type' does not match any of the expected tags: 'company-multi', 'company', 'datetime', 'dropdown-multi', 'dropdown', 'number-multi', 'number', 'formula-number', 'interaction', 'location-multi', 'location', 'person-multi', 'person', 'ranked-dropdown', 'filterable-text-multi', 'filterable-text', 'text' [type=union_tag_invalid, input_value={'type': 'note'}, input_type=dict]
    For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.12/v/union_tag_invalid
0.person.entity.fields.7.value
  Input tag 'connections' found using 'type' does not match any of the expected tags: 'company-multi', 'company', 'datetime', 'dropdown-multi', 'dropdown', 'number-multi', 'number', 'formula-number', 'interaction', 'location-multi', 'location', 'person-multi', 'person', 'ranked-dropdown', 'filterable-text-multi', 'filterable-text', 'text' [type=union_tag_invalid, input_value={'type': 'connections', 'data': None}, input_type=dict]
    For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.12/v/union_tag_invalid

our data pipeline started failing on Oct 15, 2025 at 12:01 AM (UTC) - the last successful run was on Oct 14, 2025 at 12:01 AM (UTC).
So somewhere in between now the Person entity has a new field with type of note and connections.
However the OpenAPI spec that is current, does not specify this.
The current set for fields is:

        "discriminator": {
          "propertyName": "type",
          "mapping": {
            "company-multi": "#/components/schemas/CompaniesValueUpdate",
            "company": "#/components/schemas/CompanyValueUpdate",
            "datetime": "#/components/schemas/DateValue",
            "dropdown": "#/components/schemas/DropdownValueUpdate",
            "dropdown-multi": "#/components/schemas/DropdownsValueUpdate",
            "number": "#/components/schemas/FloatValue",
            "number-multi": "#/components/schemas/FloatsValue",
            "location": "#/components/schemas/LocationValue",
            "location-multi": "#/components/schemas/LocationsValue",
            "person": "#/components/schemas/PersonValueUpdate",
            "person-multi": "#/components/schemas/PersonsValueUpdate",
            "ranked-dropdown": "#/components/schemas/RankedDropdownValueUpdate",
            "filterable-text": "#/components/schemas/TextValue",
            "filterable-text-multi": "#/components/schemas/TextsValue",
            "text": "#/components/schemas/TextValue"
          }
        },

@collinsauve sorry to mention you here, but do you have an idea why the spec is not matching the data returned?

[collinsauve]

Hi @joscha, Thank you for the report and unfortunate to hear this broke one of your integrations. This is definitely a bug! I've created a bug report (ref# ABB-10508) for the team that owns this functionality to investigate further.

I'm wondering if you have a work-around in the meantime. Not sure how your client is setup - can it ignore these unknown types?

[collinsauve]

P.S. Would you mind sending (if sensitive, via support@affinity.co) any details on which resource (list, company, etc) you are seeing this on? I expect it would help the team reproduce.

[joscha]

Hi @collinsauve - thanks for checking on this. I was wondering about a workaround. I think the simplest way might be to patch the spec file before I generate the pydantic models, but without knowing what the underlying data looks like the deserialized data is not really very sane and because we're using the pydantic models to derive the database structure from it, I am a bit worried about introducing a structure that I won't be able to easily evolve once the bug gets fixed.
The only other option I see is to drop the fields with that type from the raw data before processing it. This is not ideal either and leaves gaps in the data, but at least I won't create made-up structures.

Either is not ideal, hence why I mentioned you. I filed this with support already, but obviously I first have to get through to the techies inside Affinity :-))

[joscha]

P.S. Would you mind sending (if sensitive, via support@affinity.co) any details on which resource (list, company, etc) you are seeing this on? I expect it would help the team reproduce.

I did already last night, Aaron Hu is currently on the ticket on your side.

Request is: #00221381 [External] Outdated spec
And the ticket thread is thread::zAHP7yTRL5-H8mNrW9k34jE::

@collinsauve

[joscha]

This is the data that causes the hiccup:

{
    "id": "notes",
    "type": "global",
    "enrichmentSource": null,
    "name": "Notes",
    "value": {
        "type": "note"
    }
},
{
    "id": "ally-relationship-strengths",
    "type": "enriched",
    "enrichmentSource": null,
    "name": "Connections",
    "value": {
        "type": "connections",
        "data": null
    }
}

from a GET against lists/XXX/saved-views/YYY/list-entries
with:

dlt-source-affinity/dlt_source_affinity/__init__.py

Lines 465 to 473 in 5268ecc

	"fieldTypes": [
	Type3.ENRICHED.value,
	Type3.GLOBAL_.value,
	Type3.RELATIONSHIP_INTELLIGENCE.value,
	Type3.LIST.value,
	],
	},
	hooks=hooks,
	)

Makes me wonder if the returned data is actually not a spec issue, but an API issue and returning it is an accidental change, given it's empty.
Knowing that it is empty, I might try to write a middleware to just strip it as a workaround for now.

[joscha]

Sad workaround in b1f888b

[joscha]

On November 9, a new, related issue started surfacing:

0.company.entity.fields.24.value
  Input tag 'list-multi' found using 'type' does not match any of the expected tags: 'company-multi', 'company', 'datetime', 'dropdown-multi', 'dropdown', 'number-multi', 'number', 'formula-number', 'interaction', 'location-multi', 'location', 'person-multi', 'person', 'ranked-dropdown', 'filterable-text-multi', 'filterable-text', 'text' [type=union_tag_invalid, input_value={'type': 'list-multi'}, input_type=dict]

It seems a new list-multi type was introduced in the API response //cc @collinsauve

which is NOT available in the current swagger description on https://developer.affinity.co/ either.

[joscha]

Seems there are even more of them:

  Input tag 'reminder' found using 'type' does not match any of the expected tags: 'company-multi', 'company', 'datetime', 'dropdown-multi', 'dropdown', 'number-multi', 'number', 'formula-number', 'interaction', 'location-multi', 'location', 'person-multi', 'person', 'ranked-dropdown', 'filterable-text-multi', 'filterable-text', 'text' [type=union_tag_invalid, input_value={'type': 'reminder', 'data': None}, input_type=dict]
    For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.12/v/union_tag_invalid
97.company.entity.fields.26.value
  Input tag 'opportunity-multi' found using 'type' does not match any of the expected tags: 'company-multi', 'company', 'datetime', 'dropdown-multi', 'dropdown', 'number-multi', 'number', 'formula-number', 'interaction', 'location-multi', 'location', 'person-multi', 'person', 'ranked-dropdown', 'filterable-text-multi', 'filterable-text', 'text' [type=union_tag_invalid, input_value={'type': 'opportunity-multi'}, input_type=dict]
    For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.12/v/union_tag_invalid

reminder and opportunity-multi are not defined either.

[joscha]

Update November 19, 2025: note and connections have since been removed from the API response.