The assertion provides a generic error of 'Error in Assertion Processing' :
It might be better if the error can be more intuitive in itself.
Intentional Error Caused by using Json Patch Doc as follow ("Object One") :
[
{
"op": "test",
"path": "item/myArray/0/name",
"value": "Object One"
},
{
"op": "remove",
"path": "/item/myArray/0/name"
}
]
from the Request producing Error as Typo on "Object One" as "Object Oe"
curl --location --request PATCH 'https://example.domain.com:9443/TestJSONPatch/v1' \
--header 'Accept: application/json' \
--header 'Content-Type: application/json' \
--data '{
"item": {
"myArray" : [
{
"name": "Object Oe",
"description": "This is the first object."
},
{
"name": "Object Two",
"description": "This is the second object."
},
{
"name": "Object Three",
"description": "This is the third object."
}
]
}
}'
The error response and the audit logs, both give the same generic detail. This might make difficult to understand the problem while performing multiple operations in a single patch request
From Postman Request this is the Response showed.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<soapenv:Envelope xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<soapenv:Body>
<soapenv:Fault>
<faultcode>soapenv:Server</faultcode>
<faultstring>Policy Falsified</faultstring>
<faultactor>https://<MyGateway>:8443/jsonp</faultactor>
<detail>
<l7:policyResult status="Error in Assertion Processing" xmlns:l7="http://www.layer7tech.com/ws/policy/fault"/>
</detail>
</soapenv:Fault>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
CA API Gateway 11.1.x
1. By using tail -f /opt/SecureSpan/Gateway/node/default/var/logs/ssg_0_0.log , from the gateway
2025-07-11T13:54:09.086-0700 WARNING 263 com.l7tech.custom.jsonpatch.JsonPatchServiceInvocation: {<Redacted...> "message":"CUSTOM ASSERTION [JsonPatchAssertion]: ERROR -\u003e The value does not equal path node","listen-port":"Default HTTPS (8443)"}
the message ""The value does not equal path node" could be more intuitive to find the root cause of the error, however engineering team was notified to improve this error handling as possible.
2. Also you can review There is some Error Handling suggestion from ErrorHandling Rfc5789