#AG-sepa-dispute
radiant grail
Hi there 👋 I'm looking to see what I can find about testing this specific flow, but while I do could you share the ID of the Payment Intent that you were using for testing?
pure sparrow
sure pi_2LYKgqxe9GF9c1YN12hVK1hD here is one of the examples
lucid oracle
Thank you, toby had to step out but I can check in to that payment and see if there is a way to simulate this.
pure sparrow
I was thinking that may be there is another way to make mandate inactive? I tried to detach payment method and make setup intent single use but neither worked.
lucid oracle
I haven't been able to find much on this yet. I'm going to pull in a colleague to help look at this faster
I'm not finding a way to invalidate it either at the moment though I think I may not be looking the right places
pure sparrow
thank you for looking though. It would be helpful to find a way to repro production
lucid oracle
Definitely, my colleague is still looking here. I am honestly pretty surprised that detaching didn't do the trick but we will see how this can be done
harsh karma
Hi there. When you say you tried to detach the payment method but it didn't work, what happened exactly?
For your shared Payment Intent, the payment method was detached, invalidating the mandate: https://dashboard.stripe.com/test/logs/req_02ukxgrU8wmMqd
pure sparrow
one sec, I will find an example
basically the payment method was detached but mandate stayed active
hard kernel
HI 👋
That's a dashboard link so I cannot see what you are referencing. When you say the mandate stayed active, what Payment Method are you referring to?
pure sparrow
hm ok here is the customer cus_MH6Fe7DEVOoM5Y, For this example you can see that I just created a new customer with SEPA payment method. There is a payment and a dispute, and payment method was also detached from the customer. However when I look at the mandate for seti_0LYY2jxe9GF9c1YN4Kku4Ssh it says it's still active. Mandate id is mandate_0LYY2jxe9GF9c1YNXMK0689P
hard kernel
Okay I don't see the request to detach the customer source associated with that customer. do you have a request ID for that?
pure sparrow
I see this event in logs evt_0LYY2mxe9GF9c1YNC4LUdiCN would that help?
and the req_8oWtvfgtc3VFIn
hard kernel
Yes thank you
Okay I do see that the payment method because un-usable but you are asking if you can reproduce the fact that the mandate remains active?
With the payment method you used, where did you get that number?
pure sparrow
So from what we know, in production, after SEPA payment is disputed, mandate is revoked and becomes inactive. I just want to reproduce same behavior in test environment.
but when I fetch mandate for mentioned above customer, mandate is still active mandate_0LYY2jxe9GF9c1YNXMK0689P
I want mandate to become inactive just like in prod. Here is an example of customer who disputed the payment in production and mandate became inactive cus_LnWc4IcqL3A6Yf
hard kernel
Okay I'm going to have to ask some colleagues about this. It's pretty weird
Wait a sec... looking at that mandate I see mandate_status inactive
Do you see something else in your dashboard?
Or via the API?
pure sparrow
ok it just became inactive....
interesting, I guess it takes some time to invalidate mandate
hard kernel
But you are correct, we should behave more like production. We will raise this issue internally.
pure sparrow
it makes it really hard to test tbh. Especially with automated tests.
vale root