Thanks @juanshishido
I believe you guys know that this is not a âsolutionâ to the problem. This is a hack with some serious flaws.
Take a look on this:
First report giving the results from October 14, 2017 to October 16, 2017
twurl -H ads-api.twitter.com "/2/stats/accounts/18ce548xann?start_time=2017-10-14T00:00:00-03:00Z&end_time=2017-10-17T00:00:00-02:00Z&entity=CAMPAIGN&entity_ids=8t4n8&granularity=DAY&metric_groups=ENGAGEMENT,BILLING&placement=ALL_ON_TWITTER" -X GET | python -m json.tool
Results:
"billed_charge_local_micro": [
1947000000,
2036406914,
1869644744
],
Second report, getting only the day of October 16, 2017
twurl -H ads-api.twitter.com "/2/stats/accounts/18ce548xann?start_time=2017-10-16T00:00:00-02:00Z&end_time=2017-10-17T00:00:00-02:00Z&entity=CAMPAIGN&entity_ids=8t4n8&granularity=DAY&metric_groups=ENGAGEMENT,BILLING&placement=ALL_ON_TWITTER" -X GET | python -m json.tool
Results:
"billed_charge_local_micro": [
1941000000
],
So for the very same day, October 16, 2017, the api is giving different cost results:
R$1,869.64 on the first report
and
R$1,941.00 on the second.
A difference of 4%
Since we cannot control the data ranges our users will choose and we persist data, how can we be reliable?
And at end of the day, how much our client is actually paying?
Thanks a lot for the support!