You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For processing confirmed Authorizations there is a check that prevents double processing, with the following code:
// accept only authorizations for new (pending) orders
if ($order->getStatus() !== $order->getConfig()->getStateDefaultStatus($order::STATE_NEW)) {
$this->_addOrderMessage(
$order,
__('ingenico.notification.message2', $authorizedStatus, $order->getStatus())
);
return $this->orderRepository->save($order);
}
A similar check is not present in processing processOrderPayment, probably as it would require finding the appropriate initial status (i.e. what CleanExpiredOrders uses). Similar behaviour is achieved though, by the existing invoices check (and the $processStatus check).
Unfortunately, since we miss a similar notification when this happens during capturing instead of authorisation, would you be open to a similar acceptable check at the start of processOrderPayment?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think the most important check if an invoice is exists in the method processOrderPayment. There's status doesn't matter because possible to configure the same statuses for authorized and sale transactions.
For processing confirmed Authorizations there is a check that prevents double processing, with the following code:
A similar check is not present in processing
processOrderPayment
, probably as it would require finding the appropriate initial status (i.e. whatCleanExpiredOrders
uses). Similar behaviour is achieved though, by the existing invoices check (and the$processStatus
check).Unfortunately, since we miss a similar notification when this happens during capturing instead of authorisation, would you be open to a similar
acceptable
check at the start ofprocessOrderPayment
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: