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.
It would be super useful to allow for an email field within the hosted payment form so that, when we receive the transactionResponse we can receive that data for communicating with the customer. We have some legacy storefronts that don't collect the email address for various reasons.
Software Developer I
College of Southern Idaho
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.
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 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?
We operate as a service provider, rather than a single merchant. A lot of our merchants are not too tech savvy so asking them to generate a public key (we're switching almost all merchants to Accept.JS from AIM) is like pulling teeth most of the time. Maybe when a merchant signs up a public client key is automatically generated for them or there could be an API request that generates a key for them so we can obtain the key from a 'getMerchantDetailsRequest'.
Also once again: love your service, your API is much better documented than a lot of your competitors, it's much more robust and the Accept.js library is easy to handle.
It would be very helpful if the Accept Hosted payment form iFrame Communicator could send a communication indicating when the payment form is fully loaded in the iFrame.
We are seeing issues in some browsers (especially Safari) where scrolling while the form is still loading (before the iFrame has been resized) can result in portions of the form being hidden and no scroll bars to bring it back.
If we had notification of the form being fully loaded, we could block pointer events and scrolling for the iframe until after the the page is fully loaded.
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.
Please add a webhook for failed transactions, no matter the reason (expired, processing error, general error, whatever).
I'm not sure what kind of company wouldn't want to know immediately and automatically about a failed transaction, especially if it's for a subscription (ARB).
Silent Post does this and we're trying to migrate away from it per customer support advice but glaring omissions like this are making it near impossible.
The only solution is to either constantly query the API for unsettled txns to find failures (if we want to know about them immediately, which we do), or if we didn't mind waiting up to 24 hours then we could query once per day for the entire batch for the previous day to get all transactions and find the failed ones - but this is 2018 damnit, everything should be real time.
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.
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.
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?