#allen_api

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

placid yachtBOT
#

👋 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/841573134531821608/1344641696344051834

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

opaque ember
#

👋 happy to help

quasi steeple
#

hiya

#

hope the explanation makes sense

opaque ember
#

yes it does

#

this req_Bva329cEymvz4Q was sent with the same idempotency key as the first one. so the customer won't get charged twice

quasi steeple
#

yea I assumed that, but we're still looking for a reason why they would see this charge twice from their bank

#

this is the only anomaly I can see

#

and it seems coincidental that we'd have this double request along with two items in the customers statement

opaque ember
#

the reason why you're user sees 2 line items in their bank statement might be relevant to the fact that you're using the capture_method: "manual", which means the first one is the auth and the second one is the actual payment

#

the pending auth normally disappears after a few days

quasi steeple
#

yep we're familiar with that too since we predominantly do auth/captures

#

but this request was over 7 days ago

#

shouldn't it have dropped from the bank by now if that was the case?

opaque ember
#

maybe there's another one for this customer

#

let me see

#

or maybe that particular bank didn't remove the statement for some reason

#

this customer has a lot of payments going on here

quasi steeple
#

yep

#

which is why its curious

#

he's used to our system

opaque ember
#

I see now

quasi steeple
#

so wouldn't be put off by a typical auth/capture situation

opaque ember
#

there was a PaymentIntent that was created on the 19th that wasn't captured

#

oh no, that's the dupe

#

sorry

quasi steeple
#

haha yea

#

i've been going around in circles too

opaque ember
#

that's really strange

#

did the customer contacted their issuing bank?

quasi steeple
#

yes

opaque ember
#

what did they tell them?

quasi steeple
#

the bank is under the impression that we're still holding the funds

#

which makes no sense

opaque ember
#

I'm making sure that the dupe didn't send any auth request on the network

quasi steeple
#

okay thank you

#

that confirmation will be very helpful

opaque ember
#

no that wasn't the case though

quasi steeple
#

okay so confirmed that only one auth was done

#

?

opaque ember
#

yes I'm pretty sure

quasi steeple
#

okay what other possibilities do you think this could be?

#

i'm sure there are edge cases

opaque ember
#

I really can't think of any here

quasi steeple
#

and the funds were captured, so the hold shouldn't even stil be there right?

#

and to clarify, in this situation, if its a legit hold, its not US that's holding the funds, its the bank right?

opaque ember
opaque ember
#

but the bank does it on your behalf

#

but that's not the issue anyways

#

I just think this is something from the issuing bank's side

#

and the customer should talk to their bank to sort this out

quasi steeple
#

okay cool I can work with that, thanks!