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.
I'm trying to find out if there is an API call that will return whether or not CIM has been enabled on an account or not.
Right now we have the occassional customer who has initial issues with our payment implementation, and it often is a result of them (our customer) not having CIM enabled in their Authorize.net account. I would very much like to be able to programatically do a check for whether or not CIM is enabled.
Oh, and it would be ideal if the call didn't return a response that "implied" the anwser of whether or not CIM was enabled, but rather explicitly stated it.
There needs to be a way to quickly get any "returned" eChecks. By law, a consumer has 60 days to dispute a charge, and normal ACH transactions can take several business days to return NSF (or any other number of errors).
I can think of two ways to solve this
1) Include the Original Transaction ID in the new Transcation.
2) create new API getReturnedTransactions(startDate, endDate)
As it stand currently, I have to put transactions in a temporary database with the date performed, and then check every transaction in the temp database every day for a "returnedItems" array in the getTransactionDetailRequest() call, and once it is day 61 after the original transaction, I can delete it from the temporary database. As you can imagine, this leads to thousands of useless calls.
A single transaction, perfomed on 1-Dec 2018 has to be checked 60 times through 29-Jan 2019 to know for sure it never came back disputed.
If 10 Transactions are processed every day, for 60 days, 600 API calls are performed to charge the accounts, and then 35,400 api calls are performed to check each of the 600 transactions (Days 60 has to be checked through day 120). These figures are assuming the charge, settlement, and ACH withdrawel fromt the customer account happen almost instantaneously, which they don't).
Example can be provided to Authorize.net Staff from our production account.
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.
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!
Currently only 3 tablets are supported by the In-Person SDK for Android:
1. and 2. seem not to be in production any more, and 3. is fairly expensive.
The Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1 seems to provide very good value for its price but is not completely supported by the In-Person SDK for Android. When using the currently only supported chip card reader (BBPOS Chipper 2X) e.g. the standard EMV transaction is very slow (15-20s), the VISA Quick Chip transaction doesn't work (with or without UI), and the stripe reader is not supported.
Would it be possible to support this tablet fully for EMV transactions, please?
Thanks much for considering!
Currently we need to two buttons for managing an order payment - create/edit customer profiles and make payment. Why not let the customer get to the edit customer profile from the hosted payment form. Then after initiating a payment, if they don't see the payment option in the profile list or realize expiration date is wrong, etc, they can handle it all without returning to our site, clicking another button to manage profiles, return to our site, and then click to try paying again.
It could be a button on the hosted payment form that brings up the hosted customer profile form and when the customer is done returns to the hosted payment form.
Like this forum post, I would like to offer two simple buttons to customer - manage profile and make payment.
The solution in the post suggested submitting the following idea - "Perhaps if you call the form with a profile ID, it automatically presents the list of saved payment methods to the customer, allowing the customer to pick one, or click a button to enter a new one (either for that transaction or to save in their profile)?"
The current documentation states for the payment form - "When the form is displayed in the browser, the 4 most recent payment profiles for that profile ID will be displayed. The customer can choose between these payment methods or choose to use a new payment method."
Why make this limitation? For the very few customers that we have that would have more than 4 payment profiles, why not a 'more' link and show them all or just show them all in most recently used order? Instead we have to read the payment profiles onto our site just in case the profile the customer wishes to use wasn't in the list.
We want to integrate this payment gateway in our project(android, ios and web) as following flow.
For getAUJobDetailsRequest, can you please allow pulling auto updater details on a daily basis instead of a monthly basis? It would be very beneficial for us to have more insight into what changes are being made sooner than the first of the month.
When a customer profile is created, the payment details are validated by sending through a transaction, if validationMode is set to liveMode. This transaction is not subject to IP address filtering as this cannot be set when creating a customer. This can create a situation where the account can be locked due to the fraud, which should be blocked by IP Address filtering.
See also issue raised here
There is currently a way to pull up all customer profile IDs, but there exists no way to filter the results by email or customer ID (except by pulling each customer profile individually by the returned IDs, but this would be undesirable given the implications on performance and the number of possible customer profiles). In the CIM we can manually perform a search that searches by customer ID or email. This would be useful to have for the API.