Metadata API deployments are failing in Spring '19using deploy to create a new custom object not working and...
4 Spheres all touching each other??
For Loop and Sum
Where is this triangular-shaped space station from?
Am I a Rude Number?
How to acknowledge an embarrassing job interview, now that I work directly with the interviewer?
Dilemma of explaining to interviewer that he is the reason for declining second interview
If I delete my router's history can my ISP still provide it to my parents?
Why is this code uniquely decodable?
Auto Insert date into Notepad
How do I add a variable to this curl command?
Eww, those bytes are gross
What's the rationale behind the objections to these measures against human trafficking?
Why can I easily sing or whistle a tune I've just heard, but not as easily reproduce it on an instrument?
What do these brackets mean?
Do my Windows system binaries contain sensitive information?
What can I substitute for soda pop in a sweet pork recipe?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
What is the meaning of "pick up" in this sentence?
How to approximate rolls for potions of healing using only d6's?
How do I make a gun alignment to camera matrix in OpenGL GLSL?
I am on the US no-fly list. What can I do in order to be allowed on flights which go through US airspace?
Incompressible fluid definition
On what did Lego base the appearance of the new Hogwarts minifigs?
Finding ratio of the area of triangles
Metadata API deployments are failing in Spring '19
using deploy to create a new custom object not working and no errorsDeploy unmanaged package with Metadata APIDeploy Apex Trigger using Metadata API deploy() MethodMetadata Deploy - test code coverage report is broken in Metadata API v34.0 (Summer 15)Receiving an error via Force.com Migration Tool for a simple deployment of metadata. Thoughts?Metadata Deploy - Package.xml FailureMetadata API - few items are missing from admin.profileWhat file structure is required when setting deployOptions.singlePackage to FalseMetadata API file based retrieve and deploy callsBig Object not deploying to Salesforce
For some time now (several years) I've been deploying changes to Apex classes using the Metadata API deploy web method with an associated zip file containing the metadata and package.xml file.
This morning when I tried to deploy to na87 on Spring 19 with patch 11.5 it failed with the message:
- : package.xml (classes/package.xml) (line:0 column:0)
No package.xml found
I double checked the zip file I was sending in. It had the structure:
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls-meta.xml
- package.xml
The package.xml had:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<types>
<members>TheApexClassToDeploy</members>
<name>ApexClass</name>
</types>
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
It isn't clear to me why this package format isn't correct anymore. Did I miss something in the release notes?
Based on the error message I took a punt and created this package.xml file in the classes folder:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
Which seemed to allow the deploy to proceed.
I'll go down the path of raising a support case for this, but I'd be interested to know if I've missed a documented change to the Metadata API format.
Verification in Workbench migration/deploy using v45.0:

If I change the root level package.xml from:
45.0
to:
44.0
The deploy works against the v45.0 Metadata API endpoint.
As suggested by Pranay I did a retrieve via Workbench using v45.0 with the package.xml file and "Single Package" checked.

It doesn't appear to have the additional package.xml file.
I then did a Metadata deploy with the resulting zip file. It failed in the same way as it did above. I then tired again, but checked "Single Package"... and it deployed.
Maybe they are enforcing something new around the singlePackage setting?
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
metadata-api spring19
|
show 3 more comments
For some time now (several years) I've been deploying changes to Apex classes using the Metadata API deploy web method with an associated zip file containing the metadata and package.xml file.
This morning when I tried to deploy to na87 on Spring 19 with patch 11.5 it failed with the message:
- : package.xml (classes/package.xml) (line:0 column:0)
No package.xml found
I double checked the zip file I was sending in. It had the structure:
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls-meta.xml
- package.xml
The package.xml had:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<types>
<members>TheApexClassToDeploy</members>
<name>ApexClass</name>
</types>
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
It isn't clear to me why this package format isn't correct anymore. Did I miss something in the release notes?
Based on the error message I took a punt and created this package.xml file in the classes folder:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
Which seemed to allow the deploy to proceed.
I'll go down the path of raising a support case for this, but I'd be interested to know if I've missed a documented change to the Metadata API format.
Verification in Workbench migration/deploy using v45.0:

If I change the root level package.xml from:
45.0
to:
44.0
The deploy works against the v45.0 Metadata API endpoint.
As suggested by Pranay I did a retrieve via Workbench using v45.0 with the package.xml file and "Single Package" checked.

It doesn't appear to have the additional package.xml file.
I then did a Metadata deploy with the resulting zip file. It failed in the same way as it did above. I then tired again, but checked "Single Package"... and it deployed.
Maybe they are enforcing something new around the singlePackage setting?
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
metadata-api spring19
2
Can you try removingstandalone="true", in package.xml ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with=truein my example.
– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
1
Can you provide the samepackage.xmlin retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
1
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
For some time now (several years) I've been deploying changes to Apex classes using the Metadata API deploy web method with an associated zip file containing the metadata and package.xml file.
This morning when I tried to deploy to na87 on Spring 19 with patch 11.5 it failed with the message:
- : package.xml (classes/package.xml) (line:0 column:0)
No package.xml found
I double checked the zip file I was sending in. It had the structure:
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls-meta.xml
- package.xml
The package.xml had:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<types>
<members>TheApexClassToDeploy</members>
<name>ApexClass</name>
</types>
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
It isn't clear to me why this package format isn't correct anymore. Did I miss something in the release notes?
Based on the error message I took a punt and created this package.xml file in the classes folder:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
Which seemed to allow the deploy to proceed.
I'll go down the path of raising a support case for this, but I'd be interested to know if I've missed a documented change to the Metadata API format.
Verification in Workbench migration/deploy using v45.0:

If I change the root level package.xml from:
45.0
to:
44.0
The deploy works against the v45.0 Metadata API endpoint.
As suggested by Pranay I did a retrieve via Workbench using v45.0 with the package.xml file and "Single Package" checked.

It doesn't appear to have the additional package.xml file.
I then did a Metadata deploy with the resulting zip file. It failed in the same way as it did above. I then tired again, but checked "Single Package"... and it deployed.
Maybe they are enforcing something new around the singlePackage setting?
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
metadata-api spring19
For some time now (several years) I've been deploying changes to Apex classes using the Metadata API deploy web method with an associated zip file containing the metadata and package.xml file.
This morning when I tried to deploy to na87 on Spring 19 with patch 11.5 it failed with the message:
- : package.xml (classes/package.xml) (line:0 column:0)
No package.xml found
I double checked the zip file I was sending in. It had the structure:
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls
- classes/TheApexClassToDeploy.cls-meta.xml
- package.xml
The package.xml had:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<types>
<members>TheApexClassToDeploy</members>
<name>ApexClass</name>
</types>
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
It isn't clear to me why this package format isn't correct anymore. Did I miss something in the release notes?
Based on the error message I took a punt and created this package.xml file in the classes folder:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<Package xmlns="http://soap.sforce.com/2006/04/metadata">
<version>45.0</version>
</Package>
Which seemed to allow the deploy to proceed.
I'll go down the path of raising a support case for this, but I'd be interested to know if I've missed a documented change to the Metadata API format.
Verification in Workbench migration/deploy using v45.0:

If I change the root level package.xml from:
45.0
to:
44.0
The deploy works against the v45.0 Metadata API endpoint.
As suggested by Pranay I did a retrieve via Workbench using v45.0 with the package.xml file and "Single Package" checked.

It doesn't appear to have the additional package.xml file.
I then did a Metadata deploy with the resulting zip file. It failed in the same way as it did above. I then tired again, but checked "Single Package"... and it deployed.
Maybe they are enforcing something new around the singlePackage setting?
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
metadata-api spring19
metadata-api spring19
edited 1 hour ago
Daniel Ballinger
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
73.5k15150396
73.5k15150396
2
Can you try removingstandalone="true", in package.xml ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with=truein my example.
– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
1
Can you provide the samepackage.xmlin retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
1
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
2
Can you try removingstandalone="true", in package.xml ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with=truein my example.
– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
1
Can you provide the samepackage.xmlin retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
1
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago
2
2
Can you try removing
standalone="true" , in package.xml ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
Can you try removing
standalone="true" , in package.xml ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with =true in my example.– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with =true in my example.– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
1
1
Can you provide the same
package.xml in retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
Can you provide the same
package.xml in retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
1
1
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
As per the discussion with Pranay in the comments, the cause of the issue was the "singlePackage" setting in the deploy options.
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
Typically my deployment tooling would have this set to true (and then would work fine with v45.0), but somehow I'd managed to set it to false.
With "singlePackage" set to false but a package zip file for a single package against v44.0 the deploy would still be successful. My assumption here is that Salesforce was examining the actual contents of the zip file and adjusting the settings accordingly.
With v45.0 that no longer appears to be the case. singlePackage must be set to true when deploying a single package. Otherwise it will fail while looking for the expected package.xml files for the inner packages.
Oddly, it will still work with v45.0 if the inner package.xml files are empty and the root package.xml was valid for the single package.
So what did we learn?
Use the singlePackage setting correctly when deploying a single package!
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "459"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f252340%2fmetadata-api-deployments-are-failing-in-spring-19%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
As per the discussion with Pranay in the comments, the cause of the issue was the "singlePackage" setting in the deploy options.
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
Typically my deployment tooling would have this set to true (and then would work fine with v45.0), but somehow I'd managed to set it to false.
With "singlePackage" set to false but a package zip file for a single package against v44.0 the deploy would still be successful. My assumption here is that Salesforce was examining the actual contents of the zip file and adjusting the settings accordingly.
With v45.0 that no longer appears to be the case. singlePackage must be set to true when deploying a single package. Otherwise it will fail while looking for the expected package.xml files for the inner packages.
Oddly, it will still work with v45.0 if the inner package.xml files are empty and the root package.xml was valid for the single package.
So what did we learn?
Use the singlePackage setting correctly when deploying a single package!
add a comment |
As per the discussion with Pranay in the comments, the cause of the issue was the "singlePackage" setting in the deploy options.
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
Typically my deployment tooling would have this set to true (and then would work fine with v45.0), but somehow I'd managed to set it to false.
With "singlePackage" set to false but a package zip file for a single package against v44.0 the deploy would still be successful. My assumption here is that Salesforce was examining the actual contents of the zip file and adjusting the settings accordingly.
With v45.0 that no longer appears to be the case. singlePackage must be set to true when deploying a single package. Otherwise it will fail while looking for the expected package.xml files for the inner packages.
Oddly, it will still work with v45.0 if the inner package.xml files are empty and the root package.xml was valid for the single package.
So what did we learn?
Use the singlePackage setting correctly when deploying a single package!
add a comment |
As per the discussion with Pranay in the comments, the cause of the issue was the "singlePackage" setting in the deploy options.
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
Typically my deployment tooling would have this set to true (and then would work fine with v45.0), but somehow I'd managed to set it to false.
With "singlePackage" set to false but a package zip file for a single package against v44.0 the deploy would still be successful. My assumption here is that Salesforce was examining the actual contents of the zip file and adjusting the settings accordingly.
With v45.0 that no longer appears to be the case. singlePackage must be set to true when deploying a single package. Otherwise it will fail while looking for the expected package.xml files for the inner packages.
Oddly, it will still work with v45.0 if the inner package.xml files are empty and the root package.xml was valid for the single package.
So what did we learn?
Use the singlePackage setting correctly when deploying a single package!
As per the discussion with Pranay in the comments, the cause of the issue was the "singlePackage" setting in the deploy options.
Indicates whether the specified .zip file points to a directory structure with a single package (true) or a set of packages (false).
Typically my deployment tooling would have this set to true (and then would work fine with v45.0), but somehow I'd managed to set it to false.
With "singlePackage" set to false but a package zip file for a single package against v44.0 the deploy would still be successful. My assumption here is that Salesforce was examining the actual contents of the zip file and adjusting the settings accordingly.
With v45.0 that no longer appears to be the case. singlePackage must be set to true when deploying a single package. Otherwise it will fail while looking for the expected package.xml files for the inner packages.
Oddly, it will still work with v45.0 if the inner package.xml files are empty and the root package.xml was valid for the single package.
So what did we learn?
Use the singlePackage setting correctly when deploying a single package!
answered 1 hour ago
Daniel BallingerDaniel Ballinger
73.5k15150396
73.5k15150396
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Salesforce Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsalesforce.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f252340%2fmetadata-api-deployments-are-failing-in-spring-19%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Can you try removing
standalone="true", in package.xml ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
According to docs, standalone can have only 2 possible values, yes and no. Making it true might make XML invalid and give you errors. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms256048(v=vs.110).aspx
– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
@PranayJaiswal Good catch. I checked my actual package.xml file and it has
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>. I'm not sure I ended up with=truein my example.– Daniel Ballinger
2 hours ago
1
Can you provide the same
package.xmlin retrevie command and see whats the file structure of retreived zip ?– Pranay Jaiswal
2 hours ago
1
You found solution. I believe you should be the one answering :)
– Pranay Jaiswal
1 hour ago