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

[pull] master from solidusio:master #315

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Feb 4, 2023
Merged

Conversation

pull[bot]
Copy link

@pull pull bot commented Feb 4, 2023

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot]

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

elia and others added 8 commits February 2, 2023 11:44
There's no point in providing the latest payment from outside when the
partial is accessing `@order` directly.
`Order#is_risky?` is currently based on whether a payment is risky,
but over time the API could be expanded and allow customization.
Should not be false when a CVV message is present; that's just a
field to collect descriptions from the payment gateway, the code is
what matters

This makes it consistent with both Payment.risky and
OrdersHelper#cvv_response_code.
Use AR and existing scopes to build the query instead of SQL.

Add a spec ensuring failed payments are considered risky.
Match the behavior of Payment.risky.
AVS and CVV are a legacy coming from an age in which everything could
be done with ActiveMerchant and PCI compliance didn't exist.

Moving away from specific risk checks paves the way for payment-method
specific risky checks and display, although the underlying tables
didn't change.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants