Redsys: Add exemptions #3354
Redsys: Add exemptions #3354
Conversation
| @@ -441,8 +441,15 @@ def build_merchant_data(xml, data, options = {}) | |||
| xml.DS_MERCHANT_DIRECTPAYMENT 'true' | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| # Set moto flag only if explicitly requested via moto field | |||
| # Requires account configuration to be able to use | |||
| if options.dig(:moto) && options.dig(:metadata, :manual_entry) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I added a moto field in addition to the standard metadata[:manual_entry] since requests will fail with the error SIS0488: Merchant has not configured the payment method "MOTO/Manual payment" if you pass this field without your account being configured. Wondering if I should just remove the check for options.dig(:metadata, :manual_entry) in this case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where exactly is this :metadata, :manual_entry coming from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
per here, that's what I believe shopify has used for determining moto transactions, and was suggested as the standardized field for marking moto. I don't want to use just that field though, since if the account doesn't support moto but this field is passed in, it'll result in a possibly unintended error (but perhaps that means I should just use the separate field altogether?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a little confused; it doesn't seem like the moto field would help much in ensuring that's the case. Are you picturing it being an extra verification that the account is flagged to support moto? If so, I don't feel like that's necessary. We (Spreedly) could map our own separate flag to the manual_entry flag, if that makes sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thought was, even though we're standardizing on the manual_entry flag, since it's already being used by Shopify I don't want to unintentionally request this exemption for someone if their account isn't configured.
So basically trying to prevent a case where you're marking your payment method as manual_entry as you normally would but you're not actually intending to request an exemption, and the transaction fails because your account isn't set up - does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah I see, I didn't quite understand its interaction with the exemption piece. Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a strong opinion about whether to keep the second condition, I think you're right that it should work as intended with only the first.
britth
force-pushed
the
redsys-exemptions
branch
2 times, most recently
from
63013f3 to
9ea3fce
Compare
Sets sca_exemption when available for 3ds transactions. Also sets moto flag when requested. Remote: 22 tests, 68 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed Unit: 36 tests, 111 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications 100% passed
britth
force-pushed
the
redsys-exemptions
branch
from
9ea3fce to
4b8ddb1
Compare
Sets sca_exemption when available for 3ds transactions. Also sets
moto flag when requested.
Remote:
22 tests, 68 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
100% passed
Unit:
36 tests, 111 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
100% passed