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.
Recently we had an issue where a merchant (we act as a service provider) had already refunded a transaction via the merchant portal then when attempting to refund it through our service we encountered error code 55.
We had no other way to determine if the transaction was refunded/settled other than walking our way back through settled batches closed after the initial capture's date (or calling A.net support).
So, my proposal is this: add an array of refund transaction IDs (complete/partial) to the `getTransactionDetailsRequest` response
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.
Hello Authorize.net Community. We have recently implemented the new Accept hosted mobile optimized forms and we wanted to know if anyone has any success in hiding some of the following fields:
Unfortuantely that function the option to show or not show the billing address options and that is by setting the property for hostedPaymentBillingAddressOptions https://developer.authorize.net/api/reference/features/accept_hosted.html#Requesting_a_Token allows us to disable all of the billing fields and our challenge is that we only want to enable the address fields that are required (i.e. Street Address, Zip & Phone). Based on our research and your responses from your forum, it looks like this is not possible. Hopefully your teams can consider these non-required fields as definable options separately in the future.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
I have implemented accept hosted form into iFrame and embeded that iFrame into my main payment page.
Now my payment page has a cancel and previous button itself. so, after integration of accept hosted form there are two cancel button in my page.
We are looking for such a feature by which we can show/hide cancel button in accept hosted payment page.
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.
I have a scenario where I'm performing an authorization with a payment nonce, then creating a profile from that successful authorization, and later capturing the authorized amount. This is a nice workflow because I only create a payment profile if the authorization succeeds.
But unfortunately, this workflow is not possible because the authorization is not associated with the payment profile, and doesn't show up under its history. In a scenario where we're using a profile for recurring transactions, it's a big deal to us to have the initial payment in the history.
See this thread for more details as to alternatives that are less ideal.
It'd be very helpful if, when I create a profile from a transaction, if that transaction became the initial transaction in the payment profile's history, and I was able to capture it as though it had been issued from that profile.
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.
Currently, eCheck deposits to the merchant have the fees taken out. This makes it much more difficult to reconcile on the accounting side. Anything that adds to the daily/monthly grind is something I want to avoid. I'm considering leaving Authorize.Net for this one reason. What would it take to have eCheck deposits be the full amount of revenue received, and take out the fees as a separate transaction?
First, thank you for your amazing products and solutions. The more I use this the more I like it. This may not be the precise purpose of this forum, but I have a suggestion related to your sample apps-
The common theme I notice is that the sample apps often have the maxed out best possible that can be obtained for a given solution i.e. the Accept Hosted Iframe app. I fully appreciate the need to show and the benefit of showing what is truly possible with your products, but in helping others here and also in doing online searches during my own development process I have found that your sample apps are confusing quite a few people, for whom the fully decked out implementation may be an aspirational goal and not what they are immediately looking to acheive.
I would suggest making maybe a few sample apps, with one being a minimal integration that the developer can build on to suit their needs, and then your fully decked out showcase model for the advanced users. I think this would help many developers speed up their development process.
Thank you again. I cannot say enough how great your service is, from your API to the awesome people on the phone and the people on the forum.
I have tried to refund amount using ONLY trasaction ID, but i unable to succeed.
I have using following code Please clink on below link.
Please make api for refund only and only using transaction ID. There are no need of any card nunber, customer profile ID, Customer Payment Profile ID etc.
How you think about this IDEA to make refund using ONLY TRANSACTION ID?
It would be nice to have proration invocing feature.
It would be useful in following scenario (which is common in any subscription based payment):
Suppose I've ARB subscriptions that charges for every 3 months and has a trial period of one month. I need to charge for anything(can be features or devices) added in subscription after trial period.
For example, if some feature is added to a plan during second month then I need to charge them for remaining days of that billing cycle (so, charge amount = 30 + extracharge).
I know, I can update subscription in ARB to charge them from next billing cycle and I can do one time charge on customer profile for that extra charge.
But for this, I need to get unit price(charge per day) and since number of days in month varies the unit price also changes.
It would be nice if this calculation is done by authorize.net.
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.
My eCheck account has limits for Monthly Transaction Volume as well as Largest Transaction Size. It would be nice to be able to retrieve those limitations via your API.
One of the items we used frequently in the AIM integration was the “x_test_request” toggle for the production server. We're updating our integration for the new API and unfortunately, I am not seeing that option. In the forums as well as through the Sandbox support, I've just been told to use an “authenticateTestRequest", which simply does an "authenticate credentials". However, this is insufficient for onboarding and provisioning of new clients and I would like to see an actual "test mode" flag brought forward to the new API.
The use of this flag to change into test mode on the production server does several things for us:
1. It allows us to do full end-to-end testing of our setup (outside of the actual API integration). While we can use sandbox credentials for this, this becomes a QA issue for setup/provisioning. Using this flag allows us to set up everything exactly as needed and then simply flip a switch to "go live" on our end, as a service provider.
2. Having the ability to use live server credentials in test mode for our customers is important for those who are transitioning their service to us and may not be able to set their whole account into test mode. There are other customers with which we may just not be able to control the test mode status of their account for various reasons, so having this control at the API level (for individual transactions) is very important.
3. It is important even in test mode to be able to get the same “accept/decline” responses as we formerly could in AIM, and not just do “authenticate credentials”. How a given merchant may use the transaction data with us will vary based on their application and we need to be able to do full QA testing.
By the way, even if it did what we needed, I do not see an option in your API to just do an “authenticateTestRequest”. There is no code sample in that section of the API reference, so I’m guessing it’s not included as a formal part of the API?
Would it please be possible to support EMV transactions without UI components in a background service on Android devices?
It would make it so much easier to integrate EMV transactions in solutions that already support AIM transactions and provide e.g. signature capture, if simply the required information (authentication credentials, amount, invoice #) had to be provided to that background service which would just return the result of the transaction.
Thanks for considering!