A place for community members to contribute product ideas and suggestions.
A place for community members to contribute product ideas and suggestions.
Have your own great idea for a new API feature?
or maybe a suggested improvement to an existing one? Share it and become a god of the developer world.
As we build out our integration we noticed it would nice to have some additonal search types added to the getCustomerPaymentProfileListRequest endpoint. The most useful for us would be to search by customerProfileID. Also an expiration date range would be nice along with a paymentType (credit card or bank account)
A future request i could see is having the ability to have multiple searchTypes like customerProfileID and and an expiration month/year or range, or customerProfileID and paymentType.
The identifying information that's included in Silent Posts (x_cust_id, x_subscription_id, etc) should always be in webhook transactions, if not just everything in Silent Posts. I know about refId but that's of no use to companies using ARB for recurring billing, which is 99% of our transactions.
This is making my migration to Webhooks difficult. Your support staff has obviously been instructed to push everyone to webhooks if they're using Silent Post right now but the glaring omissions of functionality in webhooks is just absurd.
The only solution is to query the Authnet API for information on the transaction ("getTransactionDetailsRequest"). The response that comes back from that query is very detailed. That detailed response should just be webhook. Why the heck not? Come on now.
There needs to be a feature that allows you to get subscription information like when was the last valid payment, all attempt of card processing and whether it failed or went through, etc etc etc. ARB really is tiny with no usefull functions other than create and cancel subscriptions. Even the update is useless with the amount of things u can update about a transaction. So please add some features that gives users some idea of what is going on with their subscription. Is there a better payment processor than authorize.net that does this?
It would be convenient if Authorize.net would create and support an npm package that contained the production and sandbox versions of Accept.js.
I am implementing a solution in Angular and currently have copied and pasted the file contents and put them in my application.
Created from previous thread: https://community.developer.authorize.net/t5/Integration-and-Testing/refundTransaction-requires-expi...
Currently, to refund a transaction, you must provide both the masked credit card number and expiration date. Yet this information adds nothing to the request -- in fact, if you no longer have this information, you must issue a separate getTransactionDetail transaction to fetch this information. Rather than requiring two separate transactions to perform a single task, only require the original transaction id.
Please allow us to fully customize the email receipts. You finally allowed us to change the description of the normal recipt. Now expand that to allow customization for recipts from transactions flagged by the fraud filter.
In 2015 I can't even comprehend this restriction of not letting the customer dictate what the recipt should say.
Would like to be able to customize the pop up for managing payment profiles. It would be great if the Payment Form Fields configuration checkboxes applied to this, so that for example we could turn off the shipping address. A seperate place to configure this would also be fine.
The CIM iframe works great but lacks some display options. For example, I use it at a newspaper where the billing and shipping info are both useful to have. Unfortunately we cannot change the name of "Shipping" to delivery. In the case of a newspaper, this might imply we will mail the subscription which is not the case. It would also be nice to be able show or hide the shipping field if it wasn't needed.
The iframe should also support a responsively designed site. It will position further down on the page by default when viewed on a mobile device.
As noted in the FAQ, Authorize.net waits 10 seconds to receive a response from DPM POST requests:
It also notes that "On occasion, timeouts will occur that are outside of the control of your script or our servers. Typical reasons for these timeouts are Internet traffic, merchant server overload or malfunctions, or Internet routing issues. Depending upon your server location and what route is used to send data, it is possible that you may occasionally receive a time out message."
It appears that Authorize.net does not retry a failed POST, even if the 10 second timeout has not been reached. This was confirmed by an admin in the forums ("We currently do not retry failed posts").
I propose that this behavior be changed. If an Authorize.net POST request fails, prior to the 10 second cut-off, the POST should be retried, possibly with a short backoff (e.g., wait a second or two to reinitiate, to prevent a flood of requests).
As background, we have been using DPM successfully for a couple of years now, but we do occassionally see "timeout" errors. Crucially, it does not appear that these are actually caused by timeouts. The first thing we do in handling the response is log receipt of the request. But we see no evidence of having received the requests in our logs. Which suggests that the problem is happening outside of our network.
As it currently stands, Authorize.net's POST request could fail immediately due to some extremely transitory issue (perhaps even within their network). They would immediately receive a "connection reset by peer" error or whatever. And even though virtually none of the 10 second timeout period has been consumed, the customer receives a timeout error.
The DPM process should make more of an effort to communicate the transaction status and prevent this failure scenario.
Possibly related to this request would be additional logging facilities, so that both Authorize.net and its customers could have more insight into what exactly is occuring. IOW, it would be very helpful to have some visibility into *why* Authorize.net's POST request failed, and how long it took. It could provide much needed stats to discover how often the "timeout" problem is happening and whether these suggested changes are actually making a difference.
Hi there, we absolutely LOVE the new online invoicing feature - its super simple and most importantly, it makes running our business easier!
Are there plans to add a "recurring" feature - the ability to automatically send the same invoice, to the same person, on a monthly basis? We have a category of payments that we collect on a monthly basis that having a recurring invoicing feature as part of the new invoicing tool would eliminate the manual re-entry every month.
For the developers if they want to control over showing pay, cancel option, they cannot currently.
When the pay option is clicked, customers are selecting cancel option. But, the form is not cancelling the transaction to proceed. But, customers are not unaware and they are submitting another transaction. More details here.
Can we have the following so that developers can have the option to hide in the form? this helps the merchant customers not to cancel after they click pay.
once the pay button is clicked, disable the cancel button so that end-user doesnt have an option to select cancel.
The ID of a duplicate customer profile is returned, but not when it is a payment profile: "A duplicate customer payment profile already exists." These requests date back to 2009, it forces us to loop through the payments and try to guess at which one is the duplicate and doesn't always work since customers can still generate duplicates anyway by updating existing profiles. It would be nice if there was a way to get the ID of the duplicate payment profile, or if there was a way to disable the duplicate verification check completely, since what some merchants really need is just a "I give you a PAN, you give me a token" level of tokenization instead of futzing with profiles. Thanks.
We get notifications for a normal subscription transaction, but what of the trial transaction?
Isn't it weird that we have no notifications for this? like it is a ghost transaction. But it exists and we should be notified about it.
Recently I started implementing ARB on application (using php-sdk) and the implementation went smoothly until I hit a road block. I was not able to pull transactions for a subscription. In fact what, I would really prefer is to use the merchantCustomerId to pull all the transactions for that customer. Both, getting transactions for a subscription or getting transactions for merchantCustomerId, is all implemented on the merchant interface, but we are not able to use it through the API. So i know the integration between ARB and CIM is there, just not exposed to us developers.
We'd like to proactively email customers who have credit cards about to expire. It would be very helpful to have one call that would return all those customer ids with payment profile id(s) and expiration date.
We are using the AuthorizeNet Nuget package in our code base to communicate with Authorize.Net. After the TLS1.2 upgrade at Authorize.Net in the sandbox environment, we have been using
System.Net.ServicePointManager.SecurityProtocol = System.Net.SecurityProtocolType.Tls12;
So that the communication does not fail. It would be great if the fix was applied on the Nuget Package.
how i create ARB subscription using single payment in php
I want to integrate ARB with AIM in core php website.please give me proper intructions with example.