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

feat(connector): [BANKOFAMERICA] Add Required Fields for GPAY #3014

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Nov 30, 2023

Conversation

deepanshu-iiitu
Copy link
Contributor

@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu commented Nov 29, 2023

Type of Change

  • Bugfix
  • New feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactoring
  • Dependency updates
  • Documentation
  • CI/CD

Description

Following are the required fields for Google Pay Payments via Bank of America

  1. Email
  2. Billing Address(which contains the following fields)
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • City
  • State
  • Zip/Postal Code
  • Country
  • Address Line 1

Additional Changes

  • This PR modifies the API contract
  • This PR modifies the database schema
  • This PR modifies application configuration/environment variables

Motivation and Context

https://github.com/juspay/hyperswitch-cloud/issues/3297

How did you test it?

Test cases - Make a confirm false call, and make "list pm for merchant" call, in required fields, updated fields such as Billing first name, last name, line1, city, zip, country should show up for Bankofamerica
Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 1 24 50 AM
Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 1 24 57 AM

Checklist

  • I formatted the code cargo +nightly fmt --all
  • I addressed lints thrown by cargo clippy
  • I reviewed the submitted code
  • I added unit tests for my changes where possible
  • I added a CHANGELOG entry if applicable

@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu requested a review from a team as a code owner November 29, 2023 14:20
@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu self-assigned this Nov 29, 2023
@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu added A-connector-integration Area: Connector integration C-feature Category: Feature request or enhancement S-waiting-on-review Status: This PR has been implemented and needs to be reviewed labels Nov 29, 2023
@prasunna09
Copy link
Contributor

@deepanshu-iiitu Please add proper test case. This is not self explanatory.

@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu requested a review from a team as a code owner November 29, 2023 19:52
Comment on lines 2463 to 2471
(
"payment_method_data.card.card_holder_name".to_string(),
RequiredFieldInfo {
required_field: "payment_method_data.card.card_holder_name".to_string(),
display_name: "card_holder_name".to_string(),
field_type: enums::FieldType::UserFullName,
value: None,
}
),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
(
"payment_method_data.card.card_holder_name".to_string(),
RequiredFieldInfo {
required_field: "payment_method_data.card.card_holder_name".to_string(),
display_name: "card_holder_name".to_string(),
field_type: enums::FieldType::UserFullName,
value: None,
}
),

Can you please remove this? Since you have mentioned billing_first_name and billing_last_name, we can concatenate billing_first_name and last name at connector level. Ps: Billing details are tied to payment_method

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you remove this even in PaymentMethodType - Debit?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, but are we already using billing_first_name + billing_last_name as card_holder_name?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

card_holder_name is not being used

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Then why was it added in the first place?

@deepanshu-iiitu deepanshu-iiitu removed the S-waiting-on-review Status: This PR has been implemented and needs to be reviewed label Nov 30, 2023
@Gnanasundari24 Gnanasundari24 added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 30, 2023
Merged via the queue into main with commit d30b58a Nov 30, 2023
10 of 12 checks passed
@Gnanasundari24 Gnanasundari24 deleted the gpay-default-boa branch November 30, 2023 10:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-connector-integration Area: Connector integration C-feature Category: Feature request or enhancement
Projects
No open projects
Status: Merged
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants