PROTX No Cart Contents

[Ben]

Update

I've been in touch with Joe from Protx today (it turns out the person I was trying to contact originally was on holiday which was why I wasn't getting a response). Joe's told me he will post an update on this thread later this afternoon.

[cdicken]

However, do I take your second paragraph as a clear statement from Actinic that their card software is NOT FULLY INTEGRATED with PROTX??

We are fully integrated from a payment point of view. The problem you are talking about here is a new feature introduced by Protx that is incompatible with Actinic's complex order lines. Does this now mean that we are 'not fully integrated'? That's open to interpretation.

[RuralWeb]

a new feature introduced by Protx

You are always going to get this sort of problem with 3rd parties so I side with Actinic on this one. Protx should have communicated the recent changes better - complete cock up IMO

[Rob_Rhubarb]

And to think we can send man into space.

[completerookie]

ah but that is "rocket science", integrating a few bits of code isn't

[TraceyHand]

ah but that is "rocket science", integrating a few bits of code isn't

hehe, Kevin

funny

[Joe_Protx]

Hi everyone,

Okay - I've had a chat with Ben about this situation. I'd like to comment on the empty cart header that is causing confusion.

We are working on the latest build of our system before our November change freeze. One of the fixes included in this will be the removal of this empty basket header - so it will vanish soon enough. We hope to roll this build out in about a fortnight.

There will be a whole bunch of other fixes and additions - one of which includes an addition to our Deferred payment type, which I think is going to be really handy! Anyway, more info will be released closer to the time and available on our tech support website and our forum.

All the best, have a nice weekend! I'm working Sat/Sun so I can pop back on the forum here to answer any questions you might have so do let me know.

All the best,

Joe

[Rob_Rhubarb]

Thanks for the info Joe and Chris.

What exactly is the issue between getting the 2 systems to talk to each other though? Surely if the price can be passed then a simple array of text descriptions can be passed?

You mention the complex order lines in Actinic Chris but if these are passed as a text string then they are just that, a line of text.

If these were then offered to the Protx module in a format agreed by the two parties then surely they can be shown on the Protx order confirmation.

Obviously you have no obligation to explain the inner workings of either system but what am I and everyone missing here?

Regards,
Rob.

[Rob_Rhubarb]

p.s. I fully understand if I get a 'mind your own bloody business!' response to the above request

[HWW]

Thanks for the info Joe and Chris.

What exactly is the issue between getting the 2 systems to talk to each other though? Surely if the price can be passed then a simple array of text descriptions can be passed?.....

Exactly! Chatting in this community is fine and dandy but not a substitute for products and services functioning correctly i.e "integration". Would it be reasonable to expect me to plead with my bank on a "chat" if my online banking statement for a third party bank account didn't show the line items? I don't think so!

Rob, IMO Removing the header just reduces the functionality (integration).

I don't care WHY there's a problem or whose "fault" it is. I just know that there is a very visible problem and I'm paying both parties for a not fully integrated service. C'mon Actinic and Protx - you're now chatting together - how about WORKING together for your customers - you know, the folks who pay for your software licences and transaction fees Talk is cheap

[Joe_Protx]

Hiya,

I understand your concerns, we have hundreds of carts that have integrated with us, some support all of the features we offer, some support hardly any - Actinic being one of the larger of the carts is obviously very important to us and we want to do our best to please our mutual customers just as Actinic do.

Currently we have our protocol guide available to everyone on our website. This documents how one would go about passing the basket contents. This function applies to our entire customer base and all the carts that support those customers - if they wish to pass this field.

We are always looking to improve and we receive feedback gladly. It goes into our change control system and is viewed by senior staff members here - one can reach this inbox on feedback@protx.com

I am very sorry that you feel we do not offer a 'complete' integration with Actinic. I do understand your comments – not all features seem compatible and obviously we both need to address this which is something we are already working to do.

What I will say is that we are soon to be doubling our support capacity - which will allow for senior support members to focus our attention entirely on projects such as improvements with individual carts. I hope you understand that at present, with the many hundreds of carts out there - it is very difficult for us to create 'bespoke' integration with each and every one as our protocol needs to be a 'one size fits all' to ensure consistency. To me that is just logical - if every cart had a different protocol, well - I'd rather not think about that! I would have even less hair than I do now!

As I say, comments, feedback - any messages you need to pass on you can either PM me, here (or ideally the Protx forum) or drop a message to feedback@protx.com.

All the best for a nice weekend,

Joe

[Rob_Rhubarb]

Thanks Joe. That explains things very clearly from the Protx perspective. Much appreciated.

So, as I see it, Protx have a clear protocol guide that shows integrators how to pass the basket contents.

Actinic integrates with various PSP's and passes the basket contents to all of these successfully(?) with the exception of Protx?

The problem it would seem then lies with Actinic as the onus must be on the integrator to follow the given PSP's protocol as opposed to the other way round.

[Rob_Rhubarb]

Don't listen to me though. I'm just a cat with a lime on my head.

Have a good weekend everybody!

[Joe_Protx]

Hi,

No worries,

Well I'm certainly not trying to put emphasis or blame onto anyone! I think the main issue here is that incompatability between the data we have in the basket content and the way Actinic gathers it's own basket content data.

Essentially it appears to be a case of fitting the round object into the square hole at the moment - and for Protx to change or for Actinic to change I reckon it would take quite some implementation. This is, as I say, something we both need to address and if they decide they *do* want to pass the basket content field in future then we can get together and discuss the best way to do this. Presently we have no ambition to change the way the field is gathered and sent - however this is not to say that we won't ever consider such a change. We just all need to make sure you guys, the customers, are ultimately satisfied with the products and services we are offering - and the more communication and help we give each other, the better the result will be for you.

Many thanks,

Joe

[leehack]

It looks to me then that actinic have to fall in line with the standard protocol or come out and say 'we cannot do it, not possible'. Everyone will know where they stand then.

In addition with PROTX we need the ability to decide which email is sent (order details or not) or is actinic the only cart with problems in this area Joe?

PROTX also have a duty to talk to the big players in the cart software industry and talk about these changes before things just suddenly get launched. If actinic (from a PROTX) point of view are just a very small fish, then ignore the last sentence, if not, then you have a duty to communicate better.

To be fair to actinic also, we cannot always expect instantaneous software changes if a company like PROTX changes things. One thing we all have the right to expect is that you communicate on some level.

PROTX you need to have a more flexible system, if you adopt standard Protocols, then you will always need this ability.

And actinic you need to find a way to get your cart to fall in line with the protocol and initiate some communication with PROTX so you can stay in tune with future enhancements.

All IMO of course, but it's not fair that actinic shoulder all the blame on this.