#rob_api
1 messages ¡ Page 1 of 1 (latest)
đ Welcome to your new thread!
â˛ď¸ We'll be here soon! Typically we respond in a few minutes, but sometimes we might take a bit longer if the server is busy or if you have a particularly tricky question.
âąď¸ We close idle threads, which makes them read-only. Once a thread is closed it won't be reopened, but you can always start a new thread if you have another question.
đ This thread will always be available, even after it's closed. You can find it again using Discord's search, or you can save this link: https://discord.com/channels/841573134531821608/1215635635843498007
đ Have more to share? Add more details, code, screenshots, videos, etc. below.
Hi
Checking the failure 3DS request req_UO5pQ5AErZb8NM ...
Cheers!
An observation of mine is req_uiVohJcqUrTj2U which was done on staging for a stripe test card resulted in "id": "seti_xxx", in the response, which then did a request to /v1/setup_intents/seti_xxx/confirm
However our client's request... (req_rGhE59IZKsMASm) it stopped at POST /v1/setup_intents despitre having a seti_yyyy in the response
Ok it seems that the issuer was not available to authenticated that payment method... you probably need to reach out to the card's bank issuer or use another one.
And you shoul duse the Decline button and not API, this channel is for technical integration questions only.
Try checking with Stripe Support and see why that card was declines.
RIght okay thanks, with the card working on other platforms - I thought there could be something else up, as it wasn't clear to me it was decline. The test card I used gave a simialr response back to theirs.
I shall try stripe support thanks
I'll a quick test in the meanwhile using test cards..
Well, I'm not able to reproduce using the test card 4000002500003155
Yeah the test card works,
we hit POST /v1/setup_intents (req_uiVohJcqUrTj2U)
then it goes to POST /v1/setup_intents/seti_xxxx/confirm (req_8gQRzplCE8dSE0)
However with the real card
we hit POST /v1/setup_intents only (req_rGhE59IZKsMASm)
BUT the responses from req_rGhE59IZKsMASm and req_uiVohJcqUrTj2U are very similar, they both return a set_xxxxxx which is used for the next request - which is why I thought it wasn't a decline, but an intergration issue
Ah I see.