Add paymentMethodErrors, payerErrors, to PaymentDetailsUpdate #768
Conversation
|
@romandev, I saw you were helping implementing |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, I'm implementing retry() feature in Chromium under @rsolomakhin's high-quality review.
index.html
Outdated
| Similarly, if <var>details</var>["<a>payerErrors</a>"] | ||
| member is present and | ||
| <var>request</var>.<a>[[\options]]</a>'s <a data-lt= | ||
| "PaymentOptions.requestShipping">requestPayerName</a>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: <a data-lt="PaymentOptions.requestPayerName">
index.html
Outdated
| <var>request</var>.<a>[[\options]]</a>'s <a data-lt= | ||
| "PaymentOptions.requestShipping">requestPayerName</a>, | ||
| <a data-lt= | ||
| "PaymentOptions.requestShipping">requestPayerEmail</a>, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: <a data-lt="PaymentOptions.requestPayerEmail">
index.html
Outdated
| <a data-lt= | ||
| "PaymentOptions.requestShipping">requestPayerEmail</a>, | ||
| or <a data-lt= | ||
| "PaymentOptions.requestShipping">requestPayerPhone</a> is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: <a data-lt="PaymentOptions.requestPayerPhone">
|
@romandev wrote:
Excellent to hear! What do you think of the proposed fix here? Make sense from an implementation perspective? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for delayed reply.
This seems reasonable to me for consistency.
One question is whether the some error values can be updated via updateWith() on an unrelated event.
For example, requestShipping and requestPayerName are all true and merchant calls updateWith() on payer detail change event as follows.
response.addEventListener('payerdetailchange', e => {
e.updateWith({
shippingAddressErrors: { city: 'CITY ERROR' }
});
});In this case, should we allow shippingAddressErrors to be updated on payer detail change event?
FYI, in Chromium implementation, if the shippingAddressErrors is present, shipping address editor will perform after updateWith() calls.
Thank you.
I think it's fine, tbh.
I think we should allow it - just to reduce our (implementation) complexity. It's not different from a developer randomly invalidating their |
|
This is implemented in Firefox as part of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1435161 |
|
@romandev, can I get implementation commitment from the Blink side? |
|
@marcoscaceres Sure. I'm working on it. |
|
@romandev awesome to hear. When you can, could you drop add a tracking bug? 🙏 |
|
I also filed this in Chromium :) |
|
We've implemented this in Firefox. Landing this with @romandev's r+. |
|
We've implemented this in WebKit: https://trac.webkit.org/r236552 |
The following tasks have been completed:
Implementation commitment:
Optional, Impact on Payment Handler spec?
Preview | Diff