#simon_paymentintent-confirm

1 messages ¡ Page 1 of 1 (latest)

thin haloBOT
#

👋 Welcome to your new thread!

⏲️ 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.

⏱️ 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.

🔗 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/841573134531821608/1288981323305844756

📝 Have more to share? Add more details, code, screenshots, videos, etc. below.

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.

gritty flax
hollow mauve
#

Certainly! Here's the initial creation request (using capture_method: 'automatic'): req_hWZYoaDqg6ZaAJ, and here's the follow-up confirm request (also using capture_method: 'automatic'): req_lcm0yUjFwYUMJN

gritty flax
#

The error message in the second request is accurate:

This PaymentIntent's capture_method could not be updated because it has a status of requires_action. You may only update the capture_method of a PaymentIntent with one of the following statuses: requires_payment_method, requires_confirmation.
I'm a bit confused as to why you're making this request, though. Why are you trying to confirm the Payment Intent at this point? It's already in the middle of a confirmation attempt.

hollow mauve
#

The error doesn't seem accurate though. I'm not trying to update the capture_method, I'm using the same value.

#

As for why, it's because our system is old and clunky and that's how its set up, which works for every case except apparently re-charging a requires_action payment.

gritty flax
#

The property being present is enough to trigger the error. You should omit the property from the request unless you're trying to update it.

hollow mauve
#

Yeah, I was afraid of that. Would it not be possible to make that logic smarter on your end? As in only error if it is actually different? That feels like a weird "gotcha", especially given the wording of the error and the fact that it's not documented anywhere.

gritty flax
#

I can flag it as a feature request internally, but there's a good chance it either might take a long time to change or would never change.

#

It's very unlikely to change in time to impact what you're working on right now.

hollow mauve
#

Ah well, figured I'd ask.

#

I'll do a workaround on our end then.

#

I just like to keep the code surrounding payments as simple as I can. But alas, it is not always to be.

gritty flax
#

Just to clarify, you're not saying this behavior has changed on our end, right? This has always behaved the same on our end?

hollow mauve
#

I have no idea, we only started properly handling requires_action in the last few weeks.

gritty flax
#

Gotcha. I'm checking to make sure on my end, and if the behavior did change that would be considered a bug that we'd need to fix, but as far as I know this behavior has been consistent over time.

#

We tend to err on the side of stricker validation, which is what you're seeing here.

hollow mauve
#

But I doubt it, I found reports from a year or two of people encountering the same error. But those reports didn't have enough details for me to tell for sure if it was the same issue.

#

I wouldn't be surprised if that was how it always was.

#

If that's the case though it would be really nice to have that officially documented. Just a small callout saying "hey if you pass capture_method while the intent is in requires_action we'll throw" would have been enough for me to be satisfied (not thrilled per se, but at least confident it was intentional).

gritty flax
#

Once I confirm the behavior hasn't changed I'll look into updating the documentation.

#

Confirmed this has been consistent behavior over time. Will look at updating the docs.

hollow mauve
#

Thank you!

gritty flax
#

Happy to help!

thin haloBOT