[ic] Re: Authorizenet payment module (modifications)

[Philip S. Hempel]

John Young said:
>
> Philip S. Hempel wrote:
>
>> I have almost completted the modifications to the authorizenet module for CVV2, I
>> am running into a situtaion the looks like I may have to do a complete rewrite of
>> the module if it is true.
>>
>> I am trying to come up with a regex that will work with the split function.
>> One of the problems with the original code is that it only cared about the first
>> 6
>> fields that get kicked back. Now the response code for CVV2 and some of the other
>> responses do not fall into an order that can be handled correctly.
>>
>> One problem is if any order has a billing address that covers more than one line
>> it
>> will have commas added to it. When this happens the order of fields change. Now
>> authorize allows a field encapsulation character to be used so that you know that
>> the comma delim area is of the same field.
>
> This is why I mentioned changing your delimiter in my last response
> to this subject.  Using something like '|' as the delimiter would
> probably suffice.

Only problem is when you have someone with a two line address, causes the line to
become split. When and address of this form looks like this

123 West Maybury
PO Box 123

The split then would be on an address line moving all others fields down by one.
I have test this and found to be true only in this case. The case is even wors when
both billing and shipping are two line fields.
This is what I have been trying to get past. I understand the reason behind why
they gave a character to use for field encap. Not only for the line delim.

>  I've never seen it in an address, and you could
> always filter it out during user input if you were really concerned
> about it.  Just change the delimiter spec in your Auth.Net preferences
> and the .pm, then update that one split line, and it should work.

Using the pipe char was my intent as you had suggested, I can put up some of the
output if need be to show more of what I have been talking about.

>
> John Young
The suggestions that were put up erliear work fine if your not concerned about the
output.
What my goal is to let the user know why the error so they do not try fixing the
address when the actual problem is cvv2.

 If I do not use the error codes releated to cvv2 output and only use the secondary
response code it would be very generic but I could use it a least to say that it
is a cvv2 error.

Thanks for the help on this. Any comments on my understanding of this would be
helpfull
-- 
debian/rules