Celigo Pager duty integration

Im trying to celigo API to find the connections that are erroring our using
https://api.integrator.io/v1/connections/{connection_id}/ping
if the response form it is not 200, eventually it is in error state. So I put a filter for the response which does not have 200 in it, I create a pager duty incident. While I run the integration, it creates incident for all available connections. Not sure what Im missing.

Step:1: Get connections using simple Celigo connection 'https://api.integrator.io/v1/connections/'
Step:2: Get status of each connection using https://api.integrator.io/v1/connections/{connection_id}/ping
filter based on return code 200
Step:3: Create a incident for each filtered output, the failed connection which does not return 200.

Are you putting an output filter on the lookup step (the /ping call), or an import filter on your PagerDuty import? If you're filtering directly on the lookup step’s output, remember that filtered lookup records won’t get merged back into the main source record — so downstream steps still get all source records, but without the lookup data. That’s probably why incidents are being created for all connections.

Instead, try this approach:

  1. Use a response mapper on the /ping lookup step to map the code into the source record.

  2. Add a branch step right after:

    • First branch: filter where statusCode != 200.
    • Second branch: no criteria — this acts as your discard path.
  3. Hook your PagerDuty import to the first branch so incidents are only created for failed connections.

In the flow I attached (68228a005d82ab6fe9f30143.zip (6.9 KB)), I also added a step after the /ping call to check if the connection is in use on any enabled flows, so alerts are only created for active, relevant connections. You might want to include that in your setup too.

Hope the attached flow helps!

1 Like

@tylerlamparter , That was quick. The solution worked like a charm. I added details to Pager Duty call to make look the created incident with offline connection details. Thanks again for the solution.