Site change to use Protx

[jodg]

Hello there,

We are about to commence testing of the Protx to take card payments directly. At present we store the encrypted orders on the host ISP server before downloading them and processing manually via our PDQ machine.

I can't seem to find out much (either from Protx of previous forum threads) about the process changes that will happen to our site.

After the customer has specified address etc will they then be transferred to Protx directly? And how will this effect the orders we download - will it still show which goods the customer ordered?

Finally, what is the process for this sort of testing and go live? I take it we can suspend online ordering whilst we do this.

If anyone can point me to a useful previous thread or document then I'd be most grateful.

[wjcampbe]

The customer will still visit the pages built by the Act_Order01 and Act_Order02 templates. Instead of going to Act_Order03 to give you their cc details, they will transfer (via a bounce page) to Protx and go through the Protx process. They will return from Protx and land on your Act_Order04 (Receipt) page.

I take it we can suspend online ordering whilst we do this.

Ermm - No. You have to be able to process an order to the Protx test server. What I would do, is change the description shown on site (that's the second column in the table when you are setting up the payment processor in Business Settings) to say Protx TESTING ONLY. You should be able to complete the testing requirements in a half day, and then disable the option again until you get the Protx confirmation that you can go live.

[jodg]

Hello Bill,
Many thanks for the information. I'll be sure to give as much notification as possible when we are testing. It appears that Protx are pretty qucik to reply so I hope we can switch within the next week or so.
J

[los_design]

Hi J

When you are testing via Protx, ensure you log into your test server admin. (You will be required to refund a test order before you go live)

Just before you email them that you do wish to go live, ensure you have followed the integration carefully.

The support via PTX is getting much better and the golive has now reduced to a matter of minutes rather than hours in our experience.

Enjoy...
HTH

[jodg]

Hello!
Testing went OK with the generic "testvendor" account.

Unfortunately, after updating the 'OCCProtxScriptTemplate.pl' file I encountered some problems, namely that the "VendorTxCode field may be missing".

I've since realised that when I came to change the 'OCCProtxScriptTemplate.pl' file I did not increment the "[Version] Number =" field in the 'OCCUpgrade.ini' file each time I made a change.

Might this explain the message "Incomplete set of HTTP headers" that I now get? If so, how can I revert the files to their original status (i.e. before testing)?

I know that it is possible to regenerate all the .pl and .pm scripts but can I simpy edit the OCCUpgrade file to the original "[Version] Number =" number that was there before?

Many thanks in advance!

J

[wjcampbe]

No need to get the number back to what it was before.

To move forward from where you are now, just check the OCCProtxScriptTemplate file in the CommonOCC sub folder inside the site folder has the correct key and password, and the Business Setting Protx Configure setting contains the correct password twice, then increment the OCCUpgrade.ini in the OCCUpgrade folder in Actinic v7 to a minimum of one ABOVE the highest number you ever used (if it was 1202 and you *might have used 1214, play safe and make the change to 1250), then close and reopen Actinic and refresh the site. Note refresh, not a simple upload.

[Bob Isaac]

Jan,

We started with ProtX a few weeks ago and it was a trouble free change. I found them helpful but I did suggest they corrected their instruction page for Actinic as there is no need to download their patch for later Actinic versions.

I was amazed how much info you get in the admin page. We hade 3 cards refused in the first week. We are just setting up 3D Secure now.

One issue that I have found that was suggested by Bill or Darren I think was that customers using the 'Back' button can cause erroneous transaction entries.

Now our secretary has less work to do we might reduce his pay

Bob

[jodg]

Bill - many thanks for the web site refresh tip. Trouble free testing! Successfully tested this morning and have requested go live from Protx.

Bob - thanks for the information. You definitely get your money's worth information-wise, don't you? I can see failed attempts and instances where I've hit the back button and aborted. Clever stuff.

All the best,
Jan