Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
perfectpassion

Protx Direct v2.22

Recommended Posts

I have the following in my module admin page, don't you?

 

Allow Switch/Maestro

True - with 3D-Secure

 

 

Nope damn will have to look at my DB.

Edited by Babygurgles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That option is in v4.3+ - if you have update but don't have the options I suggest unisntalling the module in admin - ensuring all MODULE_PAYMENT_PROTX_DIRECT entries are gone from the configuration table then clicking install - that should ensure they are all there

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That option is in v4.3+ - if you have update but don't have the options I suggest unisntalling the module in admin - ensuring all MODULE_PAYMENT_PROTX_DIRECT entries are gone from the configuration table then clicking install - that should ensure they are all there

 

Tom

 

 

Thanks Tom that is what I was going to do but I can't do it while people are buying .. perhaps 1st thing tomorrow morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Tom that is what I was going to do but I can't do it while people are buying .. perhaps 1st thing tomorrow morning.

What I generally do is to switch to Protx Forms for the duration of messing with the Direct setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to add my thanks to perfectpassion and Vger for doing such an outstanding job on this contribution.

 

I installed v2.4 in October last year. The payment module stopped working on 1st August but I wasn't aware of it - my client had gone on holiday and suspended online payments. However - he and I found out yesterday! Unable of course to get any response from Protx at the moment - I checked and found v4.4 and installed it and it works like a dream.

 

Now all we have to do is get Protx to activate 3D secure at their end and we're laughing!

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billing address invalid error.

 

I've seen this happen a couple of times recently, and I know what causes it - and how to work around it, but it would be good if a fix could be coded in.

 

The problem is addresses with apostophes in them. The problem addresses so far have been Bishop's Storford and King's Lynn, but there may be others. What should I change to escape these out, or is there a fix using " instead of ' to separate fields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Billing address invalid error.

 

I've seen this happen a couple of times recently, and I know what causes it - and how to work around it, but it would be good if a fix could be coded in.

 

The problem is addresses with apostophes in them. The problem addresses so far have been Bishop's Storford and King's Lynn, but there may be others. What should I change to escape these out, or is there a fix using " instead of ' to separate fields?

 

 

Sorry

I had a go but I can't replicate this .. King's Lynn works fine in mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have copied and pasted from a non-plain text editor, which applies formatting, such as Wordpad then you'll get non-sgml characters entered, and one of these is Windows own version of an apostrophy (not recognised except by Microsoft programmes).

 

Vger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry

I had a go but I can't replicate this .. King's Lynn works fine in mine.

The address is being entered by a lookup from a Royal Mail PAF database, and I'm fairly sure that puts in a normal apostrophe. Am I the only person seeing this problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly sure that puts in a normal apostrophe.

 

This is a direct cut 'n paste from the data brought back from the PAF lookup

 

KING'S LYNN

 

What is the panel's opinion of that as an apostrophe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's a normal apostrophy. So that's not the problem.

 

Vger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, that's a normal apostrophy. So that's not the problem.

 

So a normal apostrophe in the town name is stopping the Billing address being passed to Protx for validation. Seems like we've identified the problem; what's the fix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The address is being entered by a lookup from a Royal Mail PAF database, and I'm fairly sure that puts in a normal apostrophe. Am I the only person seeing this problem?

 

 

Interesting .. is there a PAF contrib that I don't know about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So a normal apostrophe in the town name is stopping the Billing address being passed to Protx for validation. Seems like we've identified the problem; what's the fix?

 

 

I'd imagine that the PAF system (whatever it is) is not doing mysql_real_escape_string($thisaddressvariable) before putting in the DB.

 

Just a shot in the dark tbh as I don't know the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the module urlencodes all the data sent to Protx so standard apostrophes will cause no problem and cannot replicate the problem. What is the exact error string returned (you can set debug to true in your admin then try an order)?

 

Is anyone else having problems with Protx tonight - all transactions timing out and the protx.com servers have vanished!! - their websites won't even load and tracert s to the servers fail to resolve the address - I don't think it's my connection but would be good to know if others are affected!

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the nightmare of the 1st August Protx server upgrade I have been using PayPal Pro direct to process our credit cards but now Protx seem to have got their act together I have decided to go back to Protx and have just installed the latest v4.4 and all seems to be well, however the only Maestro card I have is a Spainish card.

Before the upgrade when I tried to use this card it would get to and pass the 3d authorisation process but then the tranaction was rejected, now when I try to use it I get the message

Your credit card could not be authorised. Please correct any information and try again or contact us for further assistance. (3069 : The PaymentSystem is not supported on the account. The following values were used, cardtype was MAESTRO, accounttype was E, currency was GBP, vendor was ..........)

Best wishes

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That error normally means that your Protx account is setup for the payment type you are using.

 

Check which payment mode you are using in your osC admin (i.e PAYMENT / DEFERRED / AUTHORISE & AUTHENTICATE) and try changing is (PAYMENT should work for all).

 

If you want to use one of the other types you'll need to contact Protx to have it activated.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the nightmare of the 1st August Protx server upgrade I have been using PayPal Pro direct to process our credit cards but now Protx seem to have got their act together I have decided to go back to Protx and have just installed the latest v4.4 and all seems to be well, however the only Maestro card I have is a Spainish card.

Before the upgrade when I tried to use this card it would get to and pass the 3d authorisation process but then the tranaction was rejected, now when I try to use it I get the message

 

 

I had the very same thing. PROTX told me that my account had never been set up properly and that they would sort it.

 

They did and it now works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have used the protx direct module for sometime now, but have noticed recently (this month), that a couple of transactions have been rejected by protx for the following reason:

 

INVALID - 4001 : The VendorTxCode has been used before. All VendorTxCodes should be unique.

 

So far customers have simply gone through the checkout process again and I have not lost any orders, but I am not sure why this is happening. Can anyone give me some assistance? Has anyone else had this problem? Could this be a Protx Issue??

Based on the fact that this code is a random number of 16 digits, it seems a bit fishy that this is happening, and Protx are pretty lousy at the moment..

I use version Protx Direct v3.0c of the module, and it works fine apart from this problem.

 

Thanks All

 

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have used the protx direct module for sometime now, but have noticed recently (this month), that a couple of transactions have been rejected by protx for the following reason:

 

INVALID - 4001 : The VendorTxCode has been used before. All VendorTxCodes should be unique.

 

So far customers have simply gone through the checkout process again and I have not lost any orders, but I am not sure why this is happening. Can anyone give me some assistance? Has anyone else had this problem? Could this be a Protx Issue??

Based on the fact that this code is a random number of 16 digits, it seems a bit fishy that this is happening, and Protx are pretty lousy at the moment..

I use version Protx Direct v3.0c of the module, and it works fine apart from this problem.

 

Thanks All

 

Neil

 

I believe this problem was handled in a previous post here but can't remember the outcome.

 

I heartily recommend simply upgrading to the latest version .. it has no downsides and loads of benefits.

 

Now sounds like a great time as you are experiencing problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v3.0c uses a 16 digit random number whilst versions from v3.1 onwards use a 32 digit random number so is much less likely to encounter the duplicate vendortxcode problem.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

 

I have a major problem here with 4.4, and I'm getting no help at all from Protx.

 

The scenario is that I host and maintain an OSCommerce site for a customer, and when Protx made all these changes, I implemented 4.4 on his site. I have checked, and re-checked, and as far as I can see, it is all correct.

 

I've run tcpdump at our firewall, and traffic is leaving our site to the new Protx URLs, and an ACK is being received. And, er, that's it! Even with debug on, nothing seems to happen. Protx claim nothing is arriving at their end.

 

I've received no documentation from anyone at Protx, and my client says he hasn't either.

 

Is there something I'm missing here? Do we have to set-up the various accounts/IP addresses at the new Protx URLS? Any clues on debugging this, please? Any gotchas I may have missed somewhere?

 

All help gratefully received.

 

Cheers, Laurie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you set the module to "Server IP test" and do a test order what does it display? If you set it to "Test" and debug to "True" what is displayed - you can send the result to me via PM if you don't want to paste them here.

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The customer was having trouble with Maestro (and Barclays as his bank) but I've just tested this with a test mastercard number (5404000000000001) and the module set up for both "Test" and "Production", with the same result he is experiencing: one is sent to this blank page:

 

https://www.paperartzzi.co.uk/protx_process...0issuing%20bank

 

Nothing happens thereafter.

 

Just tried with a "real" MC with the same result.

 

Done some more traffic sniffing, and it now appears that no traffic is leaving the server for Protx via the OSCommerce site. Connecting via lynx and links works just fine. I'm really confused...

 

Cheers, Laurie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×