<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic CIM Refund - null transaction id in Integration and Testing</title>
    <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18492#M10257</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using the CIM library to issue refunds. &amp;nbsp;I am doing this though Authorize.NET's C# SDK Refund method. &amp;nbsp;While developing with a test account in test mode, I have noticed if I pass a NULL transactionId, the transaction successfully refunds.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this by design and more importantly will this same behavior work live? &amp;nbsp;If don't need to track transactionId's to issue refunds, it would simply my implementation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On a side note, I stumbled across this because the SDK is misleading. &amp;nbsp;While the ICustomerGateway interface displays the refund method signature as:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;IGatewayResponse Refund(string profileID, string paymentProfileId, string approvalCode, string transactionId, decimal amount);&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is implemented in the CustomerGateway class as:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;public&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;IGatewayResponse&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;Refund(&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;profileID,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;paymentProfileId,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;transactionId,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;approvalCode,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;decimal&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;amount)&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Notice that the transactionId and approvalCode parameters are switched (approvalCode also isn't even used).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any feedback. - Zach&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:23:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>breslaw</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-11-02T22:23:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CIM Refund - null transaction id</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18492#M10257</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using the CIM library to issue refunds. &amp;nbsp;I am doing this though Authorize.NET's C# SDK Refund method. &amp;nbsp;While developing with a test account in test mode, I have noticed if I pass a NULL transactionId, the transaction successfully refunds.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this by design and more importantly will this same behavior work live? &amp;nbsp;If don't need to track transactionId's to issue refunds, it would simply my implementation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On a side note, I stumbled across this because the SDK is misleading. &amp;nbsp;While the ICustomerGateway interface displays the refund method signature as:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;IGatewayResponse Refund(string profileID, string paymentProfileId, string approvalCode, string transactionId, decimal amount);&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is implemented in the CustomerGateway class as:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;public&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;IGatewayResponse&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;Refund(&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;profileID,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;paymentProfileId,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;transactionId,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;string&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;approvalCode,&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;decimal&lt;/SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;amount)&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Notice that the transactionId and approvalCode parameters are switched (approvalCode also isn't even used).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for any feedback. - Zach&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 22:23:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18492#M10257</guid>
      <dc:creator>breslaw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-02T22:23:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIM Refund - null transaction id</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18502#M10262</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Test mode doesn't always work the same way as live mode. Why use test mode on a sandbox account, given that sandbox is already essentially 100% testing anyway? That having been said - there's no logical reason why passing a null would work properly. The function has to know what transaction to refund for it to issue the refund. You should store the transaction ID's locally in your database, or you're going to make things a lot more difficult for yourself in the long run. Unless refunds are a rare occurrence and you can live with logging into your Authorize.net control panel and issuing them that way.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:16:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18502#M10262</guid>
      <dc:creator>TJPride</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-03T04:16:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIM Refund - null transaction id</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18508#M10265</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Null transactionID is a unlinked refund. I think it enabled by default on test account, but need to apply for it on a live account. Like TJPride said, there is no reason to run anything on test mode for a test account.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:31:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18508#M10265</guid>
      <dc:creator>RaynorC1emen7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-03T11:31:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIM Refund - null transaction id</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18514#M10268</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="http://community.developer.authorize.net/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1353" target="_self"&gt;RaynorC1emen7&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;- thanks for the info.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;-Zach&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:28:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18514#M10268</guid>
      <dc:creator>breslaw</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-03T15:28:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIM Refund - null transaction id</title>
      <link>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18526#M10273</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Heh, nuts. Good catch.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:31:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.developer.cybersource.com/t5/Integration-and-Testing/CIM-Refund-null-transaction-id/m-p/18526#M10273</guid>
      <dc:creator>TJPride</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-03T19:31:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

