Repository navigation
[bug]: SearchClient#browse_rules doesn't deserialize api response when a rule has a single condition #512
Description
Description
The rules search endpoint in case of a single condition being present returns a condition field:
$ curl --request POST \
--url https://APP_ID.algolia.net/1/indexes/INDEX/rules/search \
--header 'accept: application/json' \
--header 'content-type: application/json' \
--header 'x-algolia-api-key: API_KEY' \
--header 'x-algolia-application-id: APP_ID' \
--data '{"query":""}'
{"hits":[{"_metadata":{"lastUpdate":1599137775},"condition":{"pattern":"some name","anchoring":"is"},"consequence":{"params":{"filters":"name:'some other name'"}},"description":"","enabled":true,"objectID":"123","_highlightResult":{"condition":{"pattern":{"value":"some name","matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[]}},"consequence":{"params":{"filters":{"value":"name:'some other name'","matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[]}}},"description":{"value":"","matchLevel":"none","matchedWords":[]}}}],"nbHits":1,"page":0,"nbPages":1}The Rule class always expects a conditions array:
This makes us retrieve conditionless rules in cases where there is a single condition.
We can monkeypatch it with:
module AlgoliaSearchRuleAttributesFix
def self.prepended(base)
base.singleton_class.prepend ClassMethods
end
module ClassMethods
def build_from_hash(attributes)
attributes = attributes.transform_keys(&:to_sym)
if attributes.key?(:condition)
(attributes[:conditions] ||= []) << attributes.delete(:condition)
end
super attributes
end
end
end
Algolia::Search::Rule.prepend AlgoliaSearchRuleAttributesFixBut the fix would be to make the api consistent in case of a single or multiple conditions
Client
Search
Version
3.34.4
Relevant log output
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Activity
[-][bug]: SearchClient.browse_rules doesn't deserialize api response when a rule has a single condition[/-][+][bug]: SearchClient#browse_rules doesn't deserialize api response when a rule has a single condition[/+]MarioAlexandruDan commentedon Feb 10, 2026
Thank you for reporting this bug. I will review it and respond with an appropriate solution shortly.
MarioAlexandruDan commentedon Feb 12, 2026
The root cause has been identified. We will resolve this in an upcoming pull request.
MarioAlexandruDan commentedon Feb 26, 2026
The issue has been resolved and the fix will be included in the next release.
Once the new version is available, please update and verify on your side. If the problem persists after upgrading, feel free to open a new issue and we’ll investigate further.