Aglet

Investigate webhook batch size and count failures

Investigation should show whether bytes, count, parsing, one malformed event, or processing capacity creates the first divergence. Build small, large, mixed, malformed, and retried batches. Follow each safe event identity separately so aggregate success and partial state do not conceal the mechanism.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build a size matrix

    Create one-event, near-limit, over-limit, high-count, mixed-validity, malformed, and partial-retry fixtures. Vary size and count independently where possible. Record expected per-event receipt, acknowledgement, processing, and state before execution. Include envelope revision and receiver limit.

  2. Trace envelope to effect

    Capture content length, event count, envelope cursor, parser result, per-event identity, loop outcome, response, durable receipt, and downstream state. Compare the first failed or missing event with a smaller working batch rather than relying on total response status. Keep batch position in the trace.

  3. Test the competing limit

    Change one body size, event count, parser branch, receiver revision, or retry condition. Compare which events are acknowledged and applied. If sender batching behavior cannot be observed, leave that limit as an explicit unresolved boundary.

What to carry forward

The brief is ready when the matrix identifies the first size, count, parse, or processing boundary and shows per-event consequences. Recommend the smallest safe correction or evidence request. Leave the remote batching contract unresolved when local fixtures cannot observe it.

Technical background: Stripe documentation.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow