joshuacs94

[keen kernel]

Hello! We'll be with you shortly. Below are links to other discussions we've had with you in the past week in case you want to review that information. If your question is related to one of these previous discussions, please provide a comprehensive summary of the current state and what you need help with now. We help many users simultaneously, so a summary allows us to resolve your issue as soon as possible.

• joshua-invoice-paymentintent, 1 day ago, 57 messages
• joshuacs94, 6 days ago, 16 messages

[forest harness]

It depends which PaymentMethod you are using

[sour hearth]

regarding question 1 or 2? 😅

[sour hearth]

anyway, we only support card and ach

ofc, mandates has to do with ach only

[wicked nexus]

👋 taking over for my colleague. Let me catch up.

[sour hearth]

Im asking because 1 month ago I saw an event of type payment_method.automatically_updated for an ACH payment method stating the ACH network blocked the account, and then a mandate.updated was fired saying the mandate was deactivated. That totally makes sense. But, a week ago, we had a payment that failed (event of type payment_intent.payment_failed) with the error code debit_not_authorized and a mandate deactivation for the ACH used in that payment happened at that exact moment, so my guess is the mandate was deactivated because of that specific error. The difference between this case and the first one is that in this no event regarding the ACH PM (payment_method.*) was fired, so I'd like to know when this mandate deactivation can happen.

Here are the events

From the first case I thought that, every time a mandate gets deactivated, some event about the PM itself would be fired... but this proves I was wrong

@wicked nexus thoughts?

[wicked nexus]

I'm looking into this, please give me a moment

[soft mica]

Can you share the evt_xxx IDs please

[sour hearth]

sure

mandate.updated:
evt_1OK8uiHewQvzvH77l1Ej72OK
payment_intent.payment_failed:
evt_3OIQuvHewQvzvH770SVeVuXw

[soft mica]

And the payment_method.automatically_updated event? What specifically is the concern here? Generally I think mandates are revoked/deactivated if/when a bank declines a payment, or the customer cancels the debit instruction

[sour hearth]

the payment_method.automatically_updated is for the first case I described that happened more than 1 month ago, this second one is totally different and happened one week ago

This is my concern
From the first case I thought that, every time a mandate gets deactivated, some event about the PM itself would be fired... but this proves I was wrong

[soft mica]

Do you have the evt_xxx ID?

[sour hearth]

yes, wait

I just want to know when that deactivation can happen to have a better understanding of how mandates work

[soft mica]

Yeah I don't think that's necessarily true for mandate cancellation. I wouldn't expect to see a payment_method.automatically_updated in that scenario, but would need to see the Event object to understand why that was fired in this case

[soft mica]

As explained, generally on a payment failure (bank rejection), and/or customer cancellation of the banking instruction/mandate

[sour hearth]

looking for the ID

and what about the second question regarding setup_future_usage?

@soft mica evt_1O89FDHewQvzvH77OYhoOeki

[soft mica]

Generally you wouldn't need to pass s_f_u on a PI that's using a pm_xxx already setup/saved for recurring usage no

[sour hearth]

ok, gotcha

[soft mica]

Looking at this

[sour hearth]

I know we have to watch for the mandate.updated so we can have the customer setup the PM again but, like I said, I also want to better understand how mandates work

[soft mica]

Yeah with this being an older event we don't have the exact object payload that was sent so difficult to discern exactly what occured. But seems the bank flagged the details as invalid/incorrect and as such fields were updated to reflect that on the related object. I see no related mandate for that specific ba_xxx so that likely explians why there was no mandate.updated event?

[soft mica]

What specifically do you want to understand that I haven't already explained?

[sour hearth]

there was a mandate.updated as well, lol: evt_1O89FFHewQvzvH772YcGfw7G

[sour hearth]

Just wanted to confirm that its also possible to not have a payment_method.* event when the mandate gets deactivated

[soft mica]

Yeah, sorry. Don't really know in this instance

[soft mica]

No, you can't configure that. That will fire whenever a field on the associated object is updated. I guess in some scenarios there's fields that are updated to reflect the failure/mandate rejection