Bambora Asia-Pacific: Adds Store #3147
Conversation
molbrown
force-pushed
the
ECS-159_Bambora_store
branch
from
861b6d3 to
672d8fe
Compare
| @@ -82,6 +82,26 @@ def void(money, authorization, options={}) | |||
| end | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def verify(credit_card, options={}) | |||
| MultiResponse.run(:use_first_response) do |r| | |||
| r.process { purchase(200, credit_card, options) } | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume 200 is it the minimum? If not, try 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wanted to, but I could not get 100 or 0 to work. Voids only work on purchases, not auths, and it won't accept a $0 purchase. It seems that 100 is an amount that generates an error for tests ("declined_message"=>"Refer Card Issuer"), though that did not seem apparent in the docs. https://dev-apac.bambora.com/checkout/guides/get-up-and-running/test-your-setup
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🤔 I wonder if an un-voided auth is preferable...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was having the same thought, it would be lame if the void fails, then there are random $2 purchases 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Updated to a 0 un-voided auth.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@molbrown Sorry for leaving this out initially, but there may be reasons that un-voided auths are undesirable as well. It should be fine if they are automatically canceled after a short time, but I can't tell if this is the case from their Docs. Any insight on that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have contacted Bambora support about this, and have decided to remove verify from this commit and proceed without it. It will be added in once there is more information about how to best implement.
molbrown
force-pushed
the
ECS-159_Bambora_store
branch
from
672d8fe to
05f3ad6
Compare
|
Not a big deal but it might be nice to pull out the endpoint determination ( |
|
|
||
| response = @gateway.purchase(500, store_response.authorization, @options) | ||
| assert_success response | ||
| assert_equal '', response.message |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a little weird. We usually set the response's message to something like "Success" on success; let's add that to message_from.
molbrown
force-pushed
the
ECS-159_Bambora_store
branch
2 times, most recently
from
f285968 to
b74907c
Compare
|
Updated with some re-factoring around the endpoint determination, removes verify, adds Succeeded to |
molbrown
force-pushed
the
ECS-159_Bambora_store
branch
from
b74907c to
06dd8ab
Compare
molbrown
changed the title
| end | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
| xml.target! | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| def define_endpoint(action) | ||
| action == 'TokeniseCreditCard' ? '/sipp' : '/dts' | ||
| end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This won't hold up approval, just something to consider. I think I would name the function endpoint and avoid including the beginning forward slash in the return values - it was not immediately apparent when reviewing the URL's where it was or how it was included.
def endpoint(action)
action == 'TokeniseCreditCard' ? 'sipp' : 'dts'
end
# Example usage
response = parse(ssl_post("#{commit_url}/#{endpoint(action)}.asmx", new_submit_xml(action, &block), headers))
ECS-159 Unit: 7 tests, 47 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed Remote: 15 tests, 30 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed
molbrown
force-pushed
the
ECS-159_Bambora_store
branch
from
06dd8ab to
2bb5b0f
Compare
ECS-159 Unit: 7 tests, 47 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed Remote: 15 tests, 30 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed Closes activemerchant#3147
ECS-159
Unit:
8 tests, 50 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
100% passed
Remote:
17 tests, 32 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
100% passed