Could you explain a Log Error with Telegram Messenger please

could someone explain to me, why this rule works, although I get the error below?
The bot sends the message.

Here is the DSL rule:

val telegramAction = getActions("telegram","telegram:telegramBot:<mybotid1234567890>")

And here is the Error Log

==> /var/log/openhab/openhab.log <==
2021-12-17 08:32:41.464 [ERROR] [internal.handler.ScriptActionHandler] - Script execution of rule with UID 'd06233b996' failed: java.lang.NumberFormatException: Expected an int but was <mybotid1234567890> at line 1 column 62 path $

I checked that int means a number and my botid is a 10 digit number.

Just for understanding purposes, since the message goes out anyway.

Best regards,


Did you try it without the <>?
My Telegram line looks like this (though ECMA script, not rule DSL):


The error message shows that it should be an integer.

yes yes. by <mybotid…> i ment as a placeholder.

it is

val telegramAction = getActions("telegram","telegram:telegramBot:1234567890")

same issue here.

See here as you need to upgrade.

clearing the cache and tmp directory in userdata did not resolve the issue

What version of opemHAB? You need to upgrade.

I am using the docker :latest tag.


I am using openHAB 3.1.1 on a RaspPi with a selfinstall (no Openhabian). And my BotNo starts with a 5…

And my Java Setup ist the following:

openjdk version "11.0.13" 2021-10-19 LTS
OpenJDK Runtime Environment Zulu11.52+13-CA (build 11.0.13+8-LTS)
OpenJDK Client VM Zulu11.52+13-CA (build 11.0.13+8-LTS, mixed mode)

By we need to upgrade you mean to Openhab 3.2 or you mean any kind of Java upgrade?

Best Regards,

You need to upgrade as there was a bug in the telegram library that the binding uses. I changed the version of the library for other reasons many months ago so the fix will be in at least half of the 3,2 milestone builds and the RC1 release candidate for 3,2 stable.

Roger that.
Never the less, as stated above - i have only an error in the log. The message arrives despite the error, what was pretty strange to me.

Can people that upgrade report back that upgrading fixes the issue please?

mm. I would if I could, however all 3.2 versions throw a lot of errors.