A really odd situation has occurred and I wonder if anyone can throw some light on it.
A customer attempted an order at 16:32:22 on the 21st March via SagePay. It was canelled by SagePay after 15 minutes of inactivity, usually due to the customer closing their browser. This of course came through to Actinic's Pending Payment Service Provider Section correctly.
At 19:54:16 same day, the same customer attempts the same order, this time successfully, only this time Actinic has assigned exactly the same TXCode as the failed transaction. This resulted in the order not coming through to Actinic as a successful order.
Following this, there appears to be 6 invalid transactions all with this same TXCode and the message - MALFORMED - 4001 : The VendorTxCode has been used before. All VendorTxCodes should be unique.
Each of these 6 attempts were seconds apart, ie, 19:55:30, 19:55:31, 19:55:33, 19:55:39, 19:55:41, and 19:55:42.
The question ringing in my ears is why would Actinic assign a failed transaction code to a subsequent successful order? Is this something I can correct because it may continue to occur and we will miss good orders? Has anyone else experienced this?
A customer attempted an order at 16:32:22 on the 21st March via SagePay. It was canelled by SagePay after 15 minutes of inactivity, usually due to the customer closing their browser. This of course came through to Actinic's Pending Payment Service Provider Section correctly.
At 19:54:16 same day, the same customer attempts the same order, this time successfully, only this time Actinic has assigned exactly the same TXCode as the failed transaction. This resulted in the order not coming through to Actinic as a successful order.
Following this, there appears to be 6 invalid transactions all with this same TXCode and the message - MALFORMED - 4001 : The VendorTxCode has been used before. All VendorTxCodes should be unique.
Each of these 6 attempts were seconds apart, ie, 19:55:30, 19:55:31, 19:55:33, 19:55:39, 19:55:41, and 19:55:42.
The question ringing in my ears is why would Actinic assign a failed transaction code to a subsequent successful order? Is this something I can correct because it may continue to occur and we will miss good orders? Has anyone else experienced this?