my gut feeling is you are getting this because you aren't authenticated as a user that has access to that file. You could get the current user for the token/client you have (`/users/me`) and see if this is a user that indeed has access to that file.
They're a test file and folder that are created in the line above with the same (only) access token. Any other idea? It can also be deleted again by this token the lines beneath it, given the same id so it appears to be a valid file id that I have access to.
Here's what postman echoes back to my PUT request:
{
"args": {
"fields":"parent"
},
"data": {
"parent": {
"id":"***number removed for privacy***98"
}
},
"files": {},
"form": {},
"headers": {
"x-forwarded-proto": "https",
"host": "postman-echo.com",
"content-length": "31",
"accept": "application/json",
"authorization": "Bearer JrUalrqUxWB47Pb72dVA50SmEIATxDtA",
"content-type": "application/json",
"user-agent": "GuzzleHttp/6.3.3 curl/7.51.0 PHP/7.1.1",
"x-forwarded-port": "443"
},
"json": {
"parent": {
"id": "***number removed for privacy***98"
}
},
"url":"https://postman-echo.com/put?fields=parent"
}
And this is what Postman echoes to the Box Content API "Move a File" postman collection request:
{
"args": {},
"data": "{\"parent\": {\"id\" : ***number removed for privacy***98}}",
"files": {},
"form": {},
"headers": {
"x-forwarded-proto": "https",
"host": "postman-echo.com",
"content-length": "34",
"accept": "*/*",
"accept-encoding": "gzip, deflate",
"authorization": "Bearer JrUalrqUxWB47Pb72dVA50SmEIATxDtA",
"cache-control": "no-cache",
"content-type": "text/plain",
"postman-token": "f85cf6c0-462a-41cc-b237-ae647809b577",
"user-agent": "PostmanRuntime/7.4.0",
"x-forwarded-port": "443"
},
"json": null,
"url": "https://postman-echo.com/put"
}
Nevermind, while looking around in a function I use to make the request I discovered that the variables for both the id of the file to be moved and the id of the parent folder were the same resulting in me giving folder X, parent folder X, trying to move a folder inside itself.
The error that I got back could be improved I think, seems like internal stuff reported back to me.
100% something I agree on, and totally a thing I'm working on!