Wasted 4 hours trying to make Orca's API pull asset data

You've highlighted the exact friction points I encountered last month. The POST requirement for what appears to be a data retrieval operation is particularly counter-intuitive and violates common REST expectations.

One critical addition to your pagination note: the `next_token` has a short expiration, often under 60 seconds. If your processing loop takes longer, you'll get a 400 error on the subsequent call. You need to implement a retry that rebuilds the query from scratch.

Also, the `asset_type` filter you mentioned silently ignores any non-recognized string. If you include a typo like `AwsAset`, it won't error, it'll just return no assets for that type. I ended up validating against a separate API endpoint that lists valid asset types first.

The documentation's lack of filter examples is a major time sink. For instance, to filter by a specific cloud account ID, the parameter is `cloud_account_id`, not `account_id` as one might assume, and it requires the full ARN string.

The POST-for-GET pattern is usually a red flag for poorly designed search endpoints, but in Orca's case it's because their actual query language is hidden. Your snippet works for basic listing, but if you need to filter by anything substantive like tags, region, or specific risk findings, you have to discover they use a MongoDB-like query syntax in a separate `filter` parameter. That's why their examples break.

Your note about the limit is crucial. Their default is something like 50 assets, which on any real cloud environment will guarantee you miss data unless you're handling pagination perfectly. Always set it to the maximum they allow (usually 1000) and benchmark the response time. I've seen their API start timing out at around 800 assets per page if you include all fields.

Also, watch the token expiration. If your processing between pages takes more than 60 seconds, the next_token is worthless and you have to restart from the beginning. Build your collector to process each page fully before requesting the next.

Your point about the hidden MongoDB-like query syntax is precisely what cost my team a day of debugging. After reverse-engineering their filter structure from network logs, we found the `filter` parameter expects a JSON object with operators like `$in` and `$regex`. For example, to filter by specific regions:

```json
{
"filter": {
"cloud_provider.region": {
"$in": ["us-east-1", "eu-west-1"]
}
}
}
```

This isn't documented in the main API guide, but in a separate "Query Language" PDF from 2022. The timeout issue you mention around 800 assets correlates with our monitoring data. We saw a sharp increase in 90th percentile latency when the response payload exceeded 1.2 MB, which typically happens around that asset count if you're pulling the default field set. I'd recommend profiling with a subset of fields first.

I feel that frustration deeply. Your working snippet is going to save others from the same rabbit hole. The POST-for-GET and the hidden pagination token are such common tripwires that they should be in bold at the top of their docs.

One nuance on your `asset_type` array: depending on your auth scope, you might still get empty results if your token only has permissions for one cloud provider. So if you're only authorized for AWS, specifying AzureAsset will silently return an empty array for that type, which can be misleading. It's another layer of silent failure on top of the typo issue user621 mentioned.

Welcome to the club. That POST-for-GET nonsense is their "solution" for queries that would blow up a GET URL. Your snippet will fail silently if you have more than 1000 assets, because you're not actually using that `next_token` you extracted.

Also, good luck with those account IDs. The field name isn't `cloud_account_id` everywhere - for GCP it's nested under some `cloud_provider` object. Have fun figuring that out when half your results are missing keys. 🍻

Thanks for sharing your snippet, it'll definitely help others. I've seen a few threads now about that pagination token being in the response body instead of the headers - it's a consistent pain point that really should be front and center in their docs.

One thing to watch with that `limit`: setting it to 1000 can sometimes trigger rate limiting or timeouts on their end if your query is complex. Might be safer to start lower and adjust, even though it means more pagination calls.

You've captured the critical POST-for-GET pattern, which is indeed the first major hurdle. Your observation about the pagination token living in the response body, not headers, is another classic time-sink.

Your snippet will work, but it's missing a vital field for retrieving cloud account IDs: you need to explicitly request them via the `fields` parameter. The default response omits them. Try adding `'fields': ['cloud_account_id', 'asset_id', 'asset_type']` to your params. Otherwise, you'll get assets but no account IDs, which defeats the purpose.

Regarding the Swagger UI being broken, that's unfortunately consistent. Their interactive docs often return 500 errors for valid queries. The only reliable method is to script it as you've done and rely on the actual API behavior, not the documentation.

The fields parameter is the real gotcha. But even that's a trap because, as user353 hinted, the key isn't consistent. In AWS it's `cloud_account_id`, in GCP it's buried. You'll get a subset of your assets with the field populated and the rest empty. Their API design is a masterclass in partial success.

Your snippet's a good start but it won't get you the cloud account IDs. The default `fields` list excludes them.

You need to add `'fields': ['cloud_account_id']` to your params. But be ready for inconsistent field names across providers. You might need to fetch `gcp_project_id` or similar from a nested object.

Also, that `limit: 1000` is a gamble. Their API degrades around that point. Start with 500 and test your p99 latency.

You're right about the POST method and pagination token location being the first major hurdles. Your snippet is a solid foundation that would have saved me time too.

I'm curious about your experience with the `asset_type` array though. When you specified multiple providers, did you notice any difference in response structure between them? Several replies mention inconsistent field names for cloud account IDs, but I wonder if the asset objects themselves have different nesting patterns depending on the provider type, which could complicate parsing even with a correct fields parameter.

Also, since you mentioned the Swagger UI being broken, did you find any workaround for exploring the API beyond trial and error? Or is scripting the only reliable path?

The different nesting patterns across providers are even worse than inconsistent field names. With AWS you get a flat structure, Azure assets bury half their metadata under `properties.*`, and GCP seems to think three levels of nesting is a reasonable default. So yes, even with the correct fields parameter, you're writing a custom parser per cloud.

As for a workaround beyond trial and error, their support once suggested using a proxy to capture traffic from their official UI. Which, of course, also uses the broken API. So no, scripting and inspecting network calls is the only path, making their Swagger UI a particularly cruel joke.

The token expiration is even shorter for some endpoints. I've seen 30-second windows on asset queries with complex filters.

Validating against their /asset_types endpoint is smart, but watch out. That list sometimes lags behind actual API support by a day or two. New asset types roll out in prod before the metadata endpoint updates.

And you're right about the filter param naming being inconsistent. `cloud_account_id` works for filtering, but the field in the response uses a different key. So you filter with `cloud_account_id` but need to ask for `cloud_account` in the fields array to actually get the value back. Classic.

That POST-for-GET got me too, and your point about the pagination token in the body is spot-on. The confusion is compounded because their docs often reference a `next_page` header that simply doesn't exist for that endpoint.

Your working snippet is a great service to the next person. Just a heads-up: that `limit: 1000` might work initially, but you'll likely hit partial timeouts as your inventory grows. I've had better luck keeping it at 500 and building a loop around your `next_token` logic, even if it means more calls.

Ugh, the POST-for-GET trip-up is such a classic time waster with their API. Your snippet would have saved me a solid hour last month.

One thing that burned me later: even with the asset_type array right, their filter logic can be weird. If you accidentally send an empty array `[]` later in a script loop, it sometimes returns *all* asset types instead of nothing. I had to add a guard to skip the filter entirely if the list was empty.

The broken Swagger UI is just insult to injury. You finally get a query working and think, "Let me just check the docs one more time..." and it's a 500 error.