[ic] Where does mv_transaction_id get set?
jordan at gishnetwork.com
Fri Feb 3 14:21:09 EST 2006
interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org
>> [mailto:interchange-users-bounces at icdevgroup.org] On Behalf Of Paul
>> Jordan Sent: 03 February 2006 15:25
>> To: interchange-users at icdevgroup.org
>> Subject: [ic] Where does mv_transaction_id get set?
>> Hello List
>> I tried undoing many armature programming errors I made very early on
>> in IC yesterday, and now my catalog will not take orders. It was
>> built in 4.8, and now is in 5.4. My attempts that caused the issue
>> were to integrate the new profiles.order and log_transaction files.
>> I think the issue revolves around mv_transaction_id. I don't believe
>> this is getting set, and subsequently, an order times out and gets
>> My other built-from-5.4 catalogs write a order file to
>> tmp/session/*mv_transaction_id*/*session*.dump. My problem catalog
>> only shows tmp/session/*session*.dump, so that is why I think it is
>> mv_transaction_id, or at least a good place to start with.
>> I grepped a catalog tree for mv_transaction_id and only found the
>> log_transaction file and order session dumps. Where does this
>> (value) get set. Any help?
> Between your versions a change was made where previously the
> order counter was used as the transaction ID - this changed to a
> separate counter.
> The problem with the old way was that every failed charge
> resulted in an unused order number (this was because the
> order number needed to be generated in order to charge the card with
> it as a reference).
> The change you need to look for is a combination of
> log_transaction and the order routes in catalog.cfg where you have
> counter_tid set.
Thanks John and Jon, yes I found an old post eluding to that. There were
actually several opinions on how to do it, but adding counter_tid
logs/tid.counter helped log_transaction get a mv_transaction_id.
I think people who used my multipage checkout of 2002 might be in trouble
when they integrate the new log_transaction and profiles.order :)
More information about the interchange-users