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.
Cynoinfotech is a Web Development Company that grows up over this year with outsourcing clients.
We have 50+ Magento 2 extensions that suitable in all professional eCommerce businesses. We provide all Magento 2 solutions that you have in mind to develop in Magento 2. Our team always recommended for their efficient and quick support services.
Today there are a lot of E-commerce web development companies who are been providing the e-commerce web development service. And if you are looking for the best e-commerce web development or website design companies for your website I would recommend you to go with WebClues Global.
Know more about Top E-Commerce Development Company
For those of you who aren't aware, Authorize.net has cancelled the Expanded Credit Capability/"ECC" program that allowed for unlinked refunds. This was the only way to issue a refund after 120 days, since Authorize.net does not retain cardholder information for the original transaction past that.
ECC is a very old program and it frankly sounds like a terrible idea, particularly with security standards today. It has no requirement that the refund has anything to do with the original transaction, so there is an obvious problem with anybody who has access to merchant credentials having a lot of opportunity to misbehave.
Our use case is pretty different and I believe that there is a lot of possibility here for Authorize.net and its customers without any additional exposure to risk, and that is the use of the Customer Proiles feature to enable the option for refunds after 120 days.
In an ordinary, non-profile transaction, Authorize.net has got to save the customer credit card number for every transaction. They don't want to do this a second longer than they have to, which is why the 120 day limit is there. OK, no problem. But with a customer profile transaction, they don't have to save anything that they don't already have: the customer provided their card info in a secure manner and Authorize.net will hang on to it until the customer deletes it.
The API already accepts the use of payment profile IDs to issue refunds. So why not carve out an exception that allows merchants using customer profiles to issue refunds for any period of time, so long as the payment profile is still active? If the customer deletes the profile, you wouldn't be able to do this; but if they don't, the argument that "we don't have the card info to issue a refund" just isn't true. There's not a lot of potential for abuse because the transaction is still a linked refund; you're not holding on to anything you weren't already going to hold on to; and you have none of the security problems of unlinked refunds.
We talked to your service department about this and the suggestion was 'escalated' but not taken seriously. They thought we were asking for something just for our account. We're not. We're asking for something for everybody's account, because the current configuration of refund options is based on assumptions from ten years ago and the use of ECC to resolve the problem. Both of those things should get a fresh look with all of the new tools that Authorize.net has added since then. We are happy to assist with this process as our customers (who are sports leagues for which people sign up 8-12 months in advance) are pretty grumpy about having to write hundreds of checks when refund time comes.
I have reviewed all documentation and it is apparent that there is no way to style the form in the Accept JS Hosted form. In order to do so, we would needto create our own form and submit it via JS. Thus, opening us up to SAQ A-EP requirements; which requires a lot more time investment to manage.
I also understand that SAQ A requires any vendor (Authorize)offering CSS manipulation to verify all code submittedfor security. There should be a way to do this programmatically, where only a subset of CSS would be processed, and the rest eaither ignored or appropriate errors raised.
Not allowing styling makes for a confusing experience for the end user. They have spent a long period of time on our site choosing items to buy, only to end up on a page that looks nothing like what they were just on. Even if it appears in a pop up, it is still a little unsettling to the user that they will be putting card data into something that looks so different.
It would be greatly appreciated if a method be could created to allow for the styling of the form.
Has or is this being considered?
I have seen a few other comments with regards to this, but there is no other detail than to create your own form. There are other vendors offering this fetaure. I would hope/expectthat Authorize. Net would offer it too.
I look forward to your response. Thanks!
As a writer, I always wondered about ways to get my articles or posts up on the internet and create a profound business standing for myself. I always wanted to be an active part of the Wiki world, but never knew the right way to do so. To be seen, you need to create a page and regularly be active by attempting to create a Wikipedia page or add comments here and there on different Wiki posts and forums. This will let you achieve the maximum amount of exposure and a great platform. Would you like to be part of the Wiki 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
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.
The issue is that Authorize.Net is not providing a « Company Name » field on the payment form for « Accept Hosted ».
Also, sending this info through the API under the “billTo > company” tags has no effect on transaction details on Authorize.Net (the Company name is not shown on the invoice).
This is a blocking issue for my customer (and yours).
Could you please be able to provide any relevant details regarding the following issue?
Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.