Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Test contributions not processed by the IatsACHEFTVerify api job #60

Open
lolaslade opened this issue Feb 24, 2015 · 5 comments
Open

Test contributions not processed by the IatsACHEFTVerify api job #60

lolaslade opened this issue Feb 24, 2015 · 5 comments

Comments

@lolaslade
Copy link

This is similar to:
adixon/ca.civicrm.iats#16
Is there a good reason not to process test contributions?

@adixon
Copy link
Contributor

adixon commented Feb 24, 2015

Previously, the test environment didn't ever verify contributions. That might be fixed now, I'll have to check.

@KarinG
Copy link
Contributor

KarinG commented Feb 24, 2015

I always use TEST88 as the live payment processor for testing - at all times - it's the only way to know for sure that you see is what you get. Easy enough to identify and fake the "live tests" - and just editing the payment processor agent code + passwd - is then the only edit to be made. All pathways are then identical (between "live test" and live).

@lolaslade
Copy link
Author

The reason for this issue is supporting some small clients who don't have a test site - we don't like it but that is their budget. They are using IATS for live payments on some pages but they are testing other features such as ACH. Therefore they can't use the TEST88 as the live processor credentials. I understand this is not a high priority but we do come across it.

@KarinG
Copy link
Contributor

KarinG commented Feb 24, 2015

Ah - did you know you can create more than one iATS credit card payment processor (with different iATS agent codes). Then you can decide on a given Contribution page if you want to add in the iATS-TEST88 one or e.g. the 2ABC80 one.

@lolaslade
Copy link
Author

Ah, thanks. I think I was not doing that because there used to be a bug specifically related to doing that.

For the record, I still think that it would be be ideal if you could support all the paths for test payments. It wouldn't be hard to change the SQL call in this api job but I'm not sure if that is all that would be required.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants