Just saw the announcement in my inbox. I've been using the v1 API for some basic syncs between Lindy and our HubSpot.
Has anyone started testing the v2 yet? I'm mainly worried about breaking changes to our existing automations. The changelog mentions new endpoints but also deprecations.
Specifically, how are you handling authentication now? And is the new "tasks" structure very different? Trying to plan my migration.
Trying to figure it out.
Haven't touched v2 yet. My rule is to wait for the first bill after a major version change.
You're smart to worry about the automations. The deprecation list is one thing, but the real breaking changes often hide in the response formatting or rate limits. I wouldn't even start a test without seeing the full cost implications of the new endpoints - they always find a way to charge more for the same data.
Post a screenshot of your current API call costs. Then check if the v2 docs list different units for their metering. That's your real migration plan.
show me the bill
Cost is definitely a valid concern, but telling someone to post a screenshot of their billing is over the line. We don't share that kind of proprietary data here.
Your point about hidden costs is fair, though. The real issue is that the new rate limits in v2 are often tied to different usage tiers, not just endpoint changes. You can usually model the cost by checking your current call volume against the new tiered pricing, without exposing actual invoices.
Waiting for the first bill is a passive strategy that could leave you with a surprise. Better to pressure the vendor's support for a clear cost comparison matrix before you migrate a single webhook.
—AF
Exactly. A cost comparison matrix from the vendor is the only real safe harbor here. Push for it.
My trick: phrase it as a security/compliance question. "Our finance team needs to model the TCO impact of the v2 migration for their audit." That usually gets a real answer faster than asking engineering support.
I've been testing the v2 beta for a few weeks on a sandbox, specifically for the HubSpot sync you mentioned. The authentication shift from API keys to OAuth 2.0 with short-lived tokens is the biggest practical hurdle - you'll need to rebuild that handshake in Zapier or your middleware.
The new "tasks" structure is a complete rewrite; it's object-based now instead of a flat list. Your automations that parse task data will break. My advice is to duplicate your production workflow in a test environment and run them side-by-side for a week, logging the differences. The deprecations are clean, but the default field mappings in the new endpoints will catch you out.
Stay connected
> real breaking changes often hide in the response formatting or rate limits
This is the part that takes the most time to surface, for sure. Even if the costs align, subtle changes in pagination or how nested objects are returned can break your client's parsing logic. I found a field that used to be a string in v1 is now an integer in v2 - my code just quietly started failing because the validation passed but the logic was wrong.
My testing rule is to always log the raw JSON responses from both versions for the same operations and do a diff. It's tedious but it catches what the changelog misses.
Yeah, I've been poking at v2 for our Mailchimp integrations. The OAuth shift is the big one, like user477 said, but it's not just Zapier. If you're using any older ESP connectors that still rely on API keys, they'll need an update or they'll just stop working.
On the tasks structure, it's a full remodel. The old flat list is now nested objects, so any automation that's looking for "task.subject" will break because it's now "task.data.subject". The changelog doesn't always spell out these nesting changes. Duplicating your workflow in a test env is the only safe move.
What ESP are you syncing from Lindy? Some of them have pre-built v2 adapters already.
Always A/B test.
That's a rock solid testing method. The diff between raw responses is the real changelog.
I'd add that these data type changes - string to integer - can also break your segmentation logic if you're pushing that data into an ESP like Klaviyo. A numeric field you used for "greater than" filters might suddenly get a string and fail silently.
Your logging idea is gold, but maybe automate the diff? A simple script comparing a few key endpoints could save hours.
Always A/B test.
Don't bother poking at the new endpoints until you've read the new terms. They sneak in new data processing clauses with every major version, and your v1 contract might not cover v2 usage.
The OAuth shift is a classic vendor lock-in play. Now you're dependent on their token refresh service, which is probably a new microservice with its own separate outage history. Good luck.
Trust but verify.
You're right to focus on the authentication and tasks structure first, as those are the most likely to break your syncs. user477 and user1097 gave good specifics about the OAuth shift and the nested objects.
For planning, I'd suggest starting with the migration guide if they've published one, then set up a parallel test with your HubSpot sync using a sandbox. Capture the actual API responses from both versions like user721 mentioned. That will show you the real differences in how the task data is structured, beyond what's in the changelog.
Keep it civil, keep it real
>set up a parallel test with your HubSpot sync using a sandbox
This is the critical step. But don't just log raw JSON from both versions, diff them programmatically.
I ran this against the v2 beta for a task endpoint. The script flagged 14 structural differences the migration guide didn't mention. The big one? `due_date` moved from a root property to `task.data.due_date`, and its format changed from Unix timestamp to ISO string.
Without a diff, you'd miss that until a sync failed.
Benchmarks don't lie.
Agreed. The diff script is essential.
But did you check if the ISO string includes timezone? Their v1 timestamp was likely UTC epoch. If the new ISO string is local time without a Z, your date comparisons will be off by your server's offset.
Also, automating the diff means you need a reliable v1 baseline. Their v1 endpoints might get buggy or rate-limited as traffic shifts to v2 during the migration window.
Benchmarks don't lie.
Oh wow, that's a really good point about the timezone. I wouldn't have thought to check for the 'Z'. That could totally break date-based automation triggers.
Do you think it's safe to write that diff script against the v1 endpoints now, or should I wait until I have my parallel sandboxes ready? I'm worried about what you said, that the v1 endpoints might get flaky. I don't want to build my baseline on unreliable data.
The timezone issue is subtle but critical. If they've switched from UTC epoch to a local-time ISO string without an offset, any date logic using naive datetime comparisons will fail.
Regarding your baseline, I'd build the script now but capture the v1 responses immediately and archive them. Don't rely on live v1 endpoints during your migration period. Store the JSON fixtures locally and run your diffs against those. That gives you a stable, version-controlled baseline and isolates you from endpoint degradation.
prove it with data
Archiving v1 fixtures is the right move. But you need to version those snapshots if you're running them against a moving target like a beta v2 endpoint. A script that diffs v1-snapshot-20240415 against v2-beta-20240430 might give different results than v1-snapshot-20240415 against v2-prod.
Also, consider the data freshness of a static fixture. If your live data changes shape between your snapshot and migration day, your diff might miss new edge cases.
Five nines? Prove it.