Skip to content

docs: fix Google Workspace shared-domain setup - #248

Merged
sidharth0612 merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
codex/google-workspace-shared-domain-guide
Sep 15, 2026
Merged

sidharth0612 merged 3 commits into
mainfrom
codex/google-workspace-shared-domain-guide

Conversation

@mikesteroonie

@mikesteroonie mikesteroonie commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Google Workspace users following the shared-domain guide hit a 422 during registration because the guide omits allow_conflicting_provider. Its MX example also incorrectly places the SES feedback endpoint at the root domain.

Changes

  • Add a registration example using allow_conflicting_provider: true and document the existing option in the shared domain-create request, including the 422 response for both organization and pod routes.
  • Separate receiving MX records at the root domain from the feedback MX at mail.<domain>, preserve Google's records, and use the regional targets returned by the API.
  • Explain that Google's unknown-recipient routing requires existing AgentMail inboxes by default, and that addresses already used by a Google Workspace user, alias, or group remain with Google.

Validation

  • fern check: 0 errors, 29 warnings.
  • Warnings are unrelated endpoint-path conflicts and an FDR 403 that skips the published-redirect comparison.
  • python3 scripts/generate_mcp_tool_catalog.py --check: passed.
  • git diff --check: passed.
  • Cross-checked the registration flag, generated DNS records, and default recipient behavior against the API implementation.
  • Local rendering could not be verified: Fern's preview bootstrap fails while installing esbuild with ERR_PNPM_INVALID_WORKSPACE_CONFIGURATION (after resolving its initial workspace-root check), then reports a missing node-polyfills.cjs. The PR preview workflow is running separately.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

📋 View the side-by-side API change review

The link expires in 7 days.

🔒 Your API specs are encrypted in CI before they're uploaded. The decryption key stays in this link's URL fragment (after the #), which browsers never send to a server, so oasdiff cannot read your specs. How it works →

Posted automatically by the oasdiff GitHub Action. To turn this off (no spec upload, no comment), set review: false on the action.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✨ API Changes

# API Changelog n/a vs. n/a


## API Changes

### POST /v0/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`


### POST /v0/pods/{pod_id}/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`

💡 Download api-changelog-diff artifact or tag @fern Writer in #github-prs for changelog.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✨ API Changes

# API Changelog n/a vs. n/a


## API Changes

### POST /v0/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`


### POST /v0/pods/{pod_id}/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`

💡 Download api-changelog-diff artifact or tag @fern Writer in #github-prs for changelog.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✨ API Changes

# API Changelog n/a vs. n/a


## API Changes

### POST /v0/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`


### POST /v0/pods/{pod_id}/domains
-  added the new optional request property `allow_conflicting_provider`
-  added the non-success response with the status `422`

💡 Download api-changelog-diff artifact or tag @fern Writer in #github-prs for changelog.

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@sidharth0612
sidharth0612 merged commit 512a5c3 into main Sep 15, 2026
4 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants