cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Live transactions are coming through as void using AIM

Hi there,

 

I'm working with a PHP/AIM integration, and we're testing live transactions. We ran two transactions today, and got both customer and merchant receipts showing us the correct amount.  However, when we log into our account, we see both transactions under "Unsettled Transactions" with a Payment Amount of $0.00, and a status of void.  We haven't manually voided them.

 

The relevant part of our code:

 

		// Authorize:
		$response  = $auth->authorizeOnly();

		if (!$response->approved) {
			return array( 'result'=>false, 'error'=>'Authorization failure: '.$response->response_reason_text );
		} else {
		        // Now capture:
			$auth_code = $response->transaction_id;
		        $capture = new AuthorizeNetAIM;
		        $capture_response = $capture->priorAuthCapture($auth_code);
		}

 We are using authorizeOnly() followed by priorAuthCapture().  From what I could find, this can be an issue in CIM, resolved by using createCustomerProfileTransactionRequest(); however, it doesn't look like AIM has this method.  Is there another fix?  Something else we might be doing wrong?  Any insight is appreciated.

 

Thanks.

ano
Member
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

1)Don't need to do "Authorization Only " then "Prior Authorization and Capture " transaction, just use "Authorization and Capture" transaction.

 

2)Dont' see why it would void it in the attach code. Are you sure there isn't any place else that might have call a void transaction?

View solution in original post

RaynorC1emen7
Expert
3 REPLIES 3

1)Don't need to do "Authorization Only " then "Prior Authorization and Capture " transaction, just use "Authorization and Capture" transaction.

 

2)Dont' see why it would void it in the attach code. Are you sure there isn't any place else that might have call a void transaction?

RaynorC1emen7
Expert

Huh - that was it, actually.  I went over the entire data flow, and sure enough, there was a void cancel request stuck in there.  I'm not even sure why; possibly it was a relic from earlier in the testing process, though I don't know why it would be.

 

In any case, thanks, and sorry it was such a boneheaded oversight, hah.

 

In response to 1, though, it was my impression that doing an authorization only and a capture would reduce the chance of ever overdrawing a customer's account, as it would check for the required funds before charging.  Am I mistaken in this?

The "Authorization and Capture" does both at authorize.net end at the same time. So it will check the funds, and capture the amount if available. But if your currently process is working. I wouldn't worry about it unless the following is true.

One thing, I not certain is that it might charge you(the merchant) processing fees twice for each transactions compare to just one with "Authorization and Capture", check the statement.