TTN Justin is always worth the overlay

Set the body of the payment, but don't check the box "It is necessary to pay for the order" above?

So why do I need that checkbox. You need to create an order without an overlay. Whatever I ticked or deleted - the overlay will be in any case

When this checkbox is not specified, the order_payment_is_required parameter is passed as false - which, based on the documentation https://justin.ua/api/api_justin_documentation.pdf, indicates that there is no post-payment. Perhaps some changes have occurred in the API and the logic has changed - you can check this with Justin technical support.

Why, then, does the "Payment body" in the box always pull up with the total amount of the order (you can't delete it). As I understand it, if the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is not worth it, then the body of the payment should be equal to zero. Judging by the documentation, the cod_amount parameter in this case is 0 At the moment, even manually registering the payment body = 0 in the box itself is impossible It turns out that we pass the parameter cod_amount with a value equal to the amount of the order Previously, when creating a TTN, this was not the case, the payment body was 0

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Why, then, does the "Payment body" in the box always pull up with the total amount of the order (you can't delete it). As I understand it, if the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is not worth it, then the body of the payment should be equal to zero. Judging by the documentation, the cod_amount parameter in this case is 0 At the moment, even manually registering the payment body = 0 in the box itself is impossible It turns out that we pass the parameter cod_amount with a value equal to the amount of the order Previously, when creating a TTN, this was not the case, the payment body was 0 [/quote] Sergey, you can try adding an additional field to the order and adjust its calculation depending on the payment method, for example, and select it in the settings [file]5077[/file]

Andrew, I already tried that. What happens - in the body of the payment it really shows 0, I was delighted to go to Justin. They opened it on their computer and they say "You have an overlay" you need to redo the entire TTN

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Previously, when creating a TTN, this was not the case, the payment body was 0 [/quote] As far as I know, no. If it is necessary that when the checkbox is not checked (by default in general) the payment body is not substituted (and when the checkbox is checked, it is substituted) - this is a refinement of the integration. [quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Andrew, I already tried that. What happens - in the body of the payment it really shows 0, I was delighted to go to Justin. They opened it on their computer and they say "You have an overlay" you need to redo the entire TTN [/quote] And they can indicate on the basis of what parameters passed in the request they determined that the overlay?

That is not, of course, this is the usual department where an ordinary operator sits, he doesn’t even know the word what a “parameter” is. He scanned my created ttn - information was opened in it in the program, where the overlay was indicated. Regarding the checkbox, it doesn’t matter to me whether the payment body is substituted or not. Here you just need to give the opportunity to normally do ttn from boxing, and if they are done crookedly, then obviously not a single manager will do them in boxing

Let's do the following - I added request logging to the Justin API on your project. How do you make an order supposedly "without an overlay" - here https://tashuta.ua/admin/logs/showall/ajax/?file=justin-2021-04-14.log (this is a log for today) there will be a log what data we sent to them in the API. Actually, if we do not pass order_payment_is_required there, contact Justin technical support to find out on the basis of what the imposition is.

Maxim, made ttn in a test order at 19:18 https://tashuta.ua/admin/customorder/order/9582/justininvoice/ Link to marking https://api.justin.ua/pms/hs/api/v1/printSticker/order?order_number=9582&api_key=38579829-ffa3-11e9-abd9-0050569b41a9 Do not look that there is no overlay (in fact, they have it in the program) As I understand it, the crown is sentry, in an hour it should show information. I'll take a look myself later.

Max checked. order_payment_is_required":false but here order_amount": 690 - the cost of the overlay, nevertheless, according to the logic, 0 should be passed if there is no overlay [file]5112[/file] 1. Once again, I will check with the operator whether the overlay is displayed 2. I'll write to technical support Justin - I'll let you know

I also want to write about the idea that Andrey suggested [file]5124[/file] Made an additional field with a null value [file]5125[/file] In fact, the body of the payment is still set And I can assure you 100% before the new year, this was not the case, I could set the body of the payment manually and it was zero by default. And justin worked great

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Max checked. order_payment_is_required":false but here order_amount": 690 - the cost of the overlay, nevertheless, according to the logic, 0 should be passed if there is no overlay 1. Once again, I will check with the operator whether the overlay is displayed 2. I'll write to technical support Justin - I'll let you know [/quote] Any feedback from tech support?

No, there is no answer, no hello, deaf. Once again I checked at my department - there is an overlay. Still, it would be easier to do as before - to give the opportunity to edit the "payment body" from the box and set any, and not as it is now - what the box has set and cannot be corrected to its value. Previously, there was no such problem and the "payment body" could be edited, respectively, you set it to 0 manually and there are no problems

There was actually a topic where, at the request of the client, this was implemented https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/logistics-and-delivery-services/1463-justin---after-sozdaniya-ttn-pishet-kakoy- to-bred-vo-vkladke-ubiraet-gorod-i-stavit-ne-pravilnuyu-summu/ I can appreciate the improvement of the logic, but I need to decide how to do it so that all parties are satisfied... Perhaps it is worth finalizing the setting in the integration so that the payment body is not automatically calculated? And then, at the first entry, the body will be formed as it is now, and with the checkbox on, it can be specified as 0, and in the future it will be displayed this way. If this option is suitable, it will take 2 hours to implement.

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: There was actually a topic where, at the request of the client, this was implemented https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/logistics-and-delivery-services/1463-justin---after-sozdaniya-ttn-pishet-kakoy- to-bred-vo-vkladke-ubiraet-gorod-i-stavit-ne-pravilnuyu-summu/ I can appreciate the improvement of the logic, but I need to decide how to do it so that all parties are satisfied... Perhaps it is worth finalizing the setting in the integration so that the payment body is not automatically calculated? And then, at the first entry, the body will be formed as it is now, and with the checkbox on, it can be specified as 0, and in the future it will be displayed this way. If this option is suitable, it will take 2 hours to implement. [/quote] And why not do that if the body of the payment and the amount from the additional field are taken, then do not count automatically, and if the field is empty, then count or give the opportunity to specify manually? This is how it works in integration with NP

[quote] And why not do that if the body of the payment and the amount from the additional field are taken, then do not count automatically, and if the field is empty, then count or give the opportunity to specify manually? This is how it works in integration with NP [/quote] I can modify it this way. The score will not change in this case.

Let's take it one more time with an example: Default option: unchecked If the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is not worth it [file]5283[/file] "order_payment_is_required" parameter: false Accordingly, "payment body" = 0 "order_amount" parameter: 0 If the checkbox is enabled [file]5284[/file] - enabled the manager when creating TTN Accordingly, "payment body" = the amount of the order balance, i.e. [file]5285[/file] Parameter order_amount": order balance BUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT - the manager can change the amount of the payment body under any circumstances Confirm if I understood everything correctly

Addition: Probably the correct condition would be: If the manager manually changed the "payment body" for some amount, the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is automatically checked "order_payment_is_required" parameter: True Otherwise, the manager will think I put the overlay - I did everything right

Sergey, Andrey - let's you agree on the logic that suits you, like the majority of those participating in the question, and provide it to me in one message - I'll tell you if it's possible and appreciate it.

I send again, confirm this logic you propose? Default option: unchecked If the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is not worth it "order_payment_is_required" parameter: false Accordingly, "payment body" = 0 "order_amount" parameter: 0 When manually changing the "payment body" to a number greater than 0, the order_payment_is_required" parameter: true If the checkbox is enabled, the manager turned it on when creating the TTN Accordingly, "payment body" = the amount of the order balance, i.e. this field is [file]5300[/file] Parameter order_amount": order balance BUT, THE MOST IMPORTANT - the manager can change the amount of the payment body under any circumstances

In my imagination, the ideal scheme looks like this: 1) Since the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" can either always be on or not be on, then always set it or ignore it altogether if we create it with an action 2) To impose or not to determine based on the amount in the "Payment Body" field, if 0 - we transfer without an overlay, if more than 0 - we transfer an overlay, and the amount in the field is the amount of the overlay. 3) Calculate "Payment body" and "Declared value", if it is selected in the account settings - based on additional ones. fields, and transmit what is selected there, otherwise why choose them at all then. This is convenient for automatic creation when switching to a stage. 4) For manual creation - make sure that in any case you can change the value when creating The bottom line is that I do not have a client to financially support this refinement, so choose what you like best or don't choose. I only suggest.

Sergey, I can implement this logic. Estimate above provided - 2 hours.

Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich, sorry for being off topic, but my integration with Justin has disappeared She was here https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/integrations/justin-integration-2/control/ Now when switching it gives 500 According to history, there is no information that someone deleted something https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/activity/?datefrom=&dateto=&url=%2Fadmin%2Fshop%2Fintegrations%2Fjustin-integration-2%2Fcontrol%2F&ip =&post=&user=0 In one task, we already wrote about this https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/logistics-and-delivery-services/8214-znikla-integratsiya-z-justin-boks-shopforcarscrm-oneboxcom/ but you did not understand As part of this task https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/business-processes/8119-nastroit-chtobi-boks-pokazal-chto-deystvie-ne-srabotalo-i-bp-podvis-na-kakom- to-iz-etapov/ You updated my box and perhaps after that the integration disappeared I am writing here because you are blocking unwanted people according to the task -foruma/ Please answer why the integration disappeared after the update and why the system gives a 500 error

Maxim, then let's go according to Andrey's version screenshot attached [file]5328[/file] In principle, the main thing is that it would be possible to create TTN without glitches, and we will adjust the rest of the subtleties And most importantly, point 4 - the manager can change the value

Maxim, then let's go according to Andrey's version screenshot attached [file]5329[/file] In principle, the main thing is that it would be possible to create TTN without glitches, and we will adjust the rest of the subtleties And most importantly, point 4 - the manager can change the value

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich, sorry for being off topic, but my integration with Justin has disappeared She was here https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/integrations/justin-integration-2/control/ Now when switching it gives 500 According to history, there is no information that someone deleted something https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/activity/?datefrom=&dateto=&url=%2Fadmin%2... In one task, we already wrote about this https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/logistics-and-delivery-services/8214-znikla-in... but you did not understand [/quote] This thread has been answered. The problem was not observed by anyone else. [quote] As part of this task https://crm-onebox.com/en/support/business-processes/8119-nastroit-chtobi-boks-p... You updated my box and perhaps after that the integration disappeared [/quote] The key is possibly. Or maybe someone deleted it somehow. [quote] I am writing here because you are blocking unwanted people according to the task https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/other-crm-and-erp/7751-blokirovka-ogranichenie... [/quote] I don't block anyone. You've just wasted every opportunity to ask questions on the forum. [quote] Please answer why the integration disappeared after the update and why the system gives a 500 error [/quote] I already answered in the topic I mentioned above. You can write as much as you like in any topic and demand something (if you have nowhere to spend your time) - this will not work. I gave you exactly here the information that I could, in view of the lack of data.

[quote] In my imagination, the ideal scheme looks like this: 1) Since the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" can either always be on or not be on, then always set it or ignore it altogether if we create it with an action 2) To impose or not to determine based on the amount in the "Payment Body" field, if 0 - we transfer without an overlay, if more than 0 - we transfer an overlay, and the amount in the field is the amount of the overlay. 3) Calculate "Payment body" and "Declared value", if it is selected in the account settings - based on additional ones. fields, and transmit what is selected there, otherwise why choose them at all then. This is convenient for automatic creation when switching to a stage. 4) For manual creation - make sure that in any case you can change the value when creating The bottom line is that I do not have a client to financially support this refinement, so choose what you like best or don't choose. I only suggest. [/quote] [quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Maxim, then let's go according to Andrey's version screenshot attached In principle, the main thing is that it would be possible to create TTN without glitches, and we will adjust the rest of the subtleties And most importantly, point 4 - the manager can change the value [/quote] I will describe how I see it: 1. When entering the manual creation of a TTN, we start from the presence of the integration setting "Order payment required" - if it is, we consider the payment body, if not, we do not. If set/removed - the calculation is turned on/off in the same way when the data changes inside the TTN creation window. Or, for this, you can make a setting in the integration to disable the dynamic calculation when editing the TTN, so that you can set the Payment body yourself even if the "Order payment required" checkbox is enabled 2. If it is indicated to count based on additional fields (and the TTN with its values \u200b\u200bis not saved) - pull it up from additional fields, otherwise - we calculate according to the process data (depending on the specified checkbox in paragraph 1) In terms of time, it will take all the same 2 hours that I estimated above.

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: 2. If it is indicated to count based on additional fields (and the TTN with its values \u200b\u200bis not saved) - pull it up from additional fields, otherwise - we calculate according to the process data (depending on the specified checkbox in paragraph 1) [/quote] If there is a checkbox "Need to pay", and in the additional field "Payment body" is 0 and we create an invoice automatically, will it not count the overlay? If I understand correctly, then it should be very clear, you can’t send a tick that you need to pay, but at the same time send the amount 0.

[quote] If there is a checkbox "Need to pay", and in the additional field "Payment body" is 0 and we create an invoice automatically, will it not count the overlay? [/quote] then parameters will be passed to Justin API accordingly. We don’t know how they already react to this at home, and judging by the attempts to get information from them above, we can only find out by experience)) [quote] If I understand correctly, then it should be very clear, you can’t send a tick that you need to pay, but at the same time send the amount 0. [/quote] well then means not to put a tick by default? especially since we still haven’t received a response from Justin how they react to this parameter

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: [quote] In my imagination, the ideal scheme looks like this: 1) Since the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" can either always be on or not be on, then always set it or ignore it altogether if we create it with an action 2) To impose or not to determine based on the amount in the "Payment Body" field, if 0 - we transfer without an overlay, if more than 0 - we transfer an overlay, and the amount in the field is the amount of the overlay. 3) Calculate "Payment body" and "Declared value", if it is selected in the account settings - based on additional ones. fields, and transmit what is selected there, otherwise why choose them at all then. This is convenient for automatic creation when switching to a stage. 4) For manual creation - make sure that in any case you can change the value when creating The bottom line is that I do not have a client to financially support this refinement, so choose what you like best or don't choose. I only suggest. [/quote] [quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Maxim, then let's go according to Andrey's version screenshot attached In principle, the main thing is that it would be possible to create TTN without glitches, and we will adjust the rest of the subtleties And most importantly, point 4 - the manager can change the value [/quote] I will describe how I see it: 1. When entering the manual creation of a TTN, we start from the presence of the integration setting "Order payment required" - if it is, we consider the payment body, if not, we do not. If set/removed - the calculation is turned on/off in the same way when the data changes inside the TTN creation window. Or, for this, you can make a setting in the integration to disable the dynamic calculation when editing the TTN, so that you can set the Payment body yourself even if the "Order payment required" checkbox is enabled 2. If it is indicated to count based on additional fields (and the TTN with its values \u200b\u200bis not saved) - pull it up from additional fields, otherwise - we calculate according to the process data (depending on the specified checkbox in paragraph 1) In terms of time, it will take all the same 2 hours that I estimated above. [/quote] Hi guys. We also have this problem on 2 boxes, the stupid manager thought, he constantly forgets to uncheck the box when manually creating, but no ... "If set / removed - the calculation is turned on / off in the same way when the data changes inside the TTN creation window." - it is necessary that when the "Order payment required" checkbox is unchecked, the payment body is reset to zero Default option: unchecked If the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" is not worth it "order_payment_is_required" parameter: false Accordingly, "payment body" = 0 "order_amount" parameter: 0 If the checkbox is enabled, the manager turned it on when creating the TTN Accordingly, "payment body" = the amount of the balance on the order, i.e. this Parameter order_amount": order balance I support the solution that Andrey described and am completely for getting away from the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" in the interface for manually creating TTN. Rename the checkbox in the integration to "It is necessary to pay for the order (for manual creation)" 1. When entering the manual creation of a TTN, we start from the presence of the integration setting "Order payment required" - if it exists, we consider the payment body, if not, we do not. The miscalculation needs to be done only once at the entrance. Then give the opportunity to edit the field "Payment body" To impose or not to determine on the basis of the amount in the "Payment body" field, if 0 - we transfer without an overlay, if more than 0 - we transfer an overlay, and the amount in the field is the amount of the overlay. 2. If it is indicated to count based on additional fields (and the TTN with its values \u200b\u200bis not saved) - pull it up from additional fields, otherwise - we calculate according to the process data (depending on the specified checkbox in paragraph 1) 3. When creating in automatic mode, read the "Payment body" and "Declared value", if selected in the account settings - based on additional ones. fields, and transmit what is selected there. 4. For manual and automatic modes, the parameter "Need to pay for the order" is passed to Justin based on the value of the "payment body": If "payment body" = 0, "It is necessary to pay for the order" =0 If "payment body" >0, "It is necessary to pay for the order" =1 ps Avoiding linking to the checkbox in the integration "It is necessary to pay for the order" will allow not to produce Justin integration accounts for automatic creation of TTN. We registered in the BP the logic for the additional field, which is transferred to the "Payment body" and happiness. And those who manually create, still double-check everything. I don't think that they prescribe the logic for Justin's accounts to change, for substituting the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" during manual creation. Guys, you need to finish the coordination of the TOR and make a revision. Calling Justin every time in a fever to remove the overlay is already pretty tired

Removed redundant text above. Hi guys. We also have this problem on 2 boxes, the stupid manager thought, he constantly forgets to uncheck the box when manually creating, but no ... I support the solution that Andrey described and am completely for getting away from the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" in the interface for manually creating TTN. Rename the checkbox in the integration to "It is necessary to pay for the order (for manual creation)" 1. When entering the manual creation of a TTN, we start from the presence of the integration setting "Order payment required" - if it exists, we consider the payment body, if not, we do not. The miscalculation needs to be done only once at the entrance. Then give the opportunity to edit the field "Payment body" To impose or not to determine on the basis of the amount in the "Payment body" field, if 0 - we transfer without an overlay, if more than 0 - we transfer an overlay, and the amount in the field is the amount of the overlay. 2. If it is indicated to count based on additional fields (and the TTN with its values \u200b\u200bis not saved) - pull it up from additional fields, otherwise - we calculate according to the process data (depending on the specified checkbox in paragraph 1) 3. When creating in automatic mode, read the "Payment body" and "Declared value", if selected in the account settings - based on additional ones. fields, and transmit what is selected there. 4. For manual and automatic modes, the parameter "Need to pay for the order" is passed to Justin based on the value of the "payment body": If "payment body" = 0, "It is necessary to pay for the order" =0 If "payment body" >0, "It is necessary to pay for the order" =1 ps Avoiding linking to the checkbox in the integration "It is necessary to pay for the order" will allow not to produce Justin integration accounts for automatic creation of TTN. We registered in the BP the logic for the additional field, which is transferred to the "Payment body" and happiness. And those who manually create, still double-check everything. I don't think that they prescribe the logic for Justin's accounts to change, for substituting the checkbox "It is necessary to pay for the order" during manual creation. Guys, you need to finish the coordination of the TOR and make a revision. Calling Justin every time in a fever to remove the overlay is already pretty tired

Someone asked Justin tech support why they have this parameter in the API, if in fact it does not affect the order payment? Does this affect only the presence of the payment body in 100% of cases?

Didn't specify. Today I will write a support request Justin

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich wrote: Someone asked Justin tech support why they have this parameter in the API, if in fact it does not affect the order payment? Does this affect only the presence of the payment body in 100% of cases? [/quote] I think that this parameter is needed for the api, most likely it is mandatory, but it makes no sense for us to set it manually in the box, so I stated in the proposal that I propose to remove it from the interface, but leave it in the request for creating a TTN, let it go. In any case, the one who pays, he orders the music. And to make sure, you can throw a request in postman and send it with and without a parameter, but this is a waste of time, it is obvious that they will create an invoice without an overlay, if you do not pass a check mark, this has already been confirmed by tests when creating an invoice with the action / Their API may not be ideal, but this does not force us to do the same game in the interface, fewer checkboxes that can objectively be closed with other functionality will only benefit

The parameter is needed for the API - we make a request to the API. Actually, the question for contacting Justin technical support is needed in order to understand the whole picture of how their API works. After you receive an answer, based on it, the final decision will be made on how we will implement this moment in OneBox (if the checkmark is not needed at all, we will remove it) and I will adjust the assessment if necessary.

The request was sent to Justin. Waiting.

I correspond directly with Justin. To fix the problem, they asked to send the request in full type in JSON format, and what url goes to. Can we provide them with this?

https://tashuta.ua/admin/shop/report/logs/ - here there will be request / response logs, but in the form of decoded json into associative arrays - I think it will suit them in this form You will need to create a TTN for some process and you will receive a log file there for today, with a request for this process

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: I correspond directly with Justin. To fix the problem, they asked to send the request in full type in JSON format, and what url goes to. Can we provide them with this? [/quote] Good afternoon, Sergey, did you manage to put the squeeze on Justin?

I periodically reviewed the logs here https://tashuta.ua/admin/shop/report/logs/ and did not find a single one related to Justin (namely, to create ttn). Although sends to Justin are coming

Your project has probably been updated and the changes have been removed. Added logging of all requests for profit - make a problem TTN.

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production Premium partner wrote: Your project has probably been updated and the changes have been removed. Added logging of all requests for profit - make a problem TTN. [/quote] Maxim, make me a profit logging too. Now I don't see anything in the logs [file]7756[/file] . I'll post the logs soon.

[quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: Maxim, make me a profit logging too. Now I don't see anything in the logs. I'll post the logs soon. [/quote] added for crm.giftstore.com.ua

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: crm.giftstore.com.ua [/quote] Sergey, in the attachment there are logs (I made 2 invoices just in case), please send to Justin. It's already enough to call in a fever to cancel the overlay .... [file]7789[/file]

I'm sorry, this is the file. In the previous logs for the whole day. This left only the creation of 2 waybills. (as far as I understood logically) [file]7790[/file]

Sent a log to Justin

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Sent a log to Justin [/quote] Good afternoon. Sergey, did Justin give an answer?

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production wrote: [quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: Maxim, make me a profit logging too. Now I don't see anything in the logs. I'll post the logs soon. [/quote] added for crm.giftstore.com.ua [/quote] Good afternoon, Maxim. You can get involved in the correspondence with Justin, I don't understand what they want. [file]8432[/file] The problem is getting worse every day.

I sent them this file. [file]8433[/file]

[quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: You can get involved in the correspondence with Justin, I don't understand what they want. [/quote] They don't want to do anything

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production wrote: [quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: You can get involved in the correspondence with Justin, I don't understand what they want. [/quote] They don't want to do anything [/quote] Yes, it's understandable) I really want to solve this problem. Let's take a look and fix it.

[quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: I really want to solve this problem. Let's take a look and fix it. [/quote] One of the clients also approached Justin with this problem - let's wait to see if he gets the information. I understand your pain, I don't mind solving it - but I need information from Justin to solve the problem, not create new ones.

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production wrote: [quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: I really want to solve this problem. Let's take a look and fix it. [/quote] One of the clients also approached Justin with this problem - let's wait to see if he gets the information. I understand your pain, I don't mind solving it - but I need information from Justin to solve the problem, not create new ones. [/quote] Security cancel) I checked the last 4 shipments, there is no overlay. Looks like they got through to Justin. I'll watch it for a week and report back.

[quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: Security cancel) I checked the last 4 shipments, there is no overlay. Looks like they got through to Justin. I will observe during the week, I will unsubscribe. [/ Quote] Hello, how did you manage to create without an overlay?) I have everything with overlays

[quote] Mordach Anton Vladimirovich wrote: [quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: Security cancel) I checked the last 4 shipments, there is no overlay. Looks like they got through to Justin. I will observe during the week, I will unsubscribe. [/ Quote] Hello, how did you manage to create without an overlay?) I have everything with overlays [/quote] Good afternoon. I just unchecked [file]8507[/file] Colleagues have also had no overlays in recent days.

I wrote to TP Justin today to figure out why he's creating cash on delivery. He wrote that we are passing in "order_payment_is_required" - "false", but creates a TTN with cash on delivery, to which he received an answer, they do not understand why in this case we also pass "order_amount" - "39.8", "redelivery_amount" - " 15.8", "redelivery_payment_is_required" - "true," why send this if there is no overlay - here is the screen - [file]8512[/file] I also asked them why the "order_payment_is_required" parameter in the API is needed, if in fact it does not affect the overlay, I asked if only the presence of the payment body affects the overlay, and about the order_amount field, I asked if we do not send this value, it will Is there an error that it is not filled in (since this field is required based on the documentation). I'm waiting for an answer. I suggest, when overlaying, send: order_amount and redelivery_amount value 0 (which is logical)

Justin's answer, if only delivery, no overlay [file]8520[/file]

[quote] Agarenko Sergey wrote: Good afternoon. I just unchecked the box. Colleagues also have no overlays for the last few days. [/quote] strange API) works as it should for some, not for others) [quote] Mordach Anton Vladimirovich wrote: I suggest, when overlaying, send: order_amount and redelivery_amount value 0 (which is logical) [/quote] you can modify such a check if there is no check mark for payment - it will take about 2 hours

[quote] you can modify such a check if there is no check mark for payment - it will take about 2 hours [/quote] If there is no checkbox that is responsible for the overlay, you need to send such a request [file]8654[/file] We are ready to pay, issue an invoice

When to expect the bill?

Anton, I also need this revision. We agreed with Yulia that I will pay for one hour and you will pay for one hour. I'm also waiting for the bill.

[quote] Tashuta Sergey Grigorievich wrote: Anton, I also need this revision. We agreed with Yulia that I will pay for one hour and you will pay for one hour. I'm also waiting for the bill. [/quote] Alright, we're waiting for the bill.

Can you update https://stimul.crm-onebox.com/ too? We are currently testing and faced the same issue.

[quote] Volkovich Alexander wrote: Can you update https://stimul.crm-onebox.com/ too? We are currently testing and faced the same issue. [/quote] +

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production wrote: Improved checks and protection when sending a request to create a TTN: if pick_up_is_required is not specified, then the order_amount / redelivery_amount / redelivery_payment_is_required parameters are passed as 0 / false, respectively. Updated https://yavshoke.ua/ and https://tashuta.ua/ [/quote] Maxim, please update https://crm.giftstore.com.ua/ and https://smartkids.crm-onebox.com/

+

1. Can you update https://baza.cn.ua/? 2. Previously, the error "Missing any current account" popped up, now another "Required Field "cod_transfer_type" Not Found" in this task https://crm-onebox.com/ru/support/logistics-and-delivery-services/9988- po-dzhastinu-ne-oformlyaetsya-ttn/ it is described that new fields have been added (but I don’t find these fields in my place) update (point 1) to solve this problem or is it necessary to write in that task?

[quote] Kupriyan Vladislav Valerievich wrote: 1. Can you update https://baza.cn.ua/? [/quote] +

[quote] Tyndyk Maxim Vadimovich OneBox production wrote: [quote] Kupriyan Vladislav Valerievich wrote: 1. Can you update https://baza.cn.ua/? [/quote] + [/quote] Thanks, it's working now But there are nuances / questions: 1. Created TTN here https://baza.cn.ua/admin/customorder/order/48411/justininvoice/ Specified "Post-payment return form" = bank card In "Post-payment return card number" pulled the card from the settings https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/integrations/justin-integration-4/control/ But after creating the TTN, in the field "Post-payment return card number" some incomprehensible code "2147 ******" was put down (I closed it with asterisks because it is not clear what kind of code it is) After the TTN was deleted, the strange code remained in this field "Postpayment return card number", that is, if you create a new TTN, the system already writes "There was a pardon. Field "cod_card_number" Not Valid" and you need to enter the card number manually If you enter a new order https://baza.cn.ua/admin/customorder/order/48424/justininvoice/ then the card is pulled up correctly there Can you fix this bug? 2. It was not possible to get from the system the opportunity to prescribe the amount of the overlay (Pіslyaplata) I tried it in different ways, but it writes empty in the TTN, with what combinations of the values \u200b\u200bof this can be achieved? [file]9354[/file]

[quote] Kupriyan Vladislav Valerievich wrote: 1. Created TTN here https://baza.cn.ua/admin/customorder/order/48411/justininvoice/ Specified "Post-payment return form" = bank card In "Post-payment return card number" pulled the card from the settings https://baza.cn.ua/admin/shop/integrations/justin-integration-4/control/ But after creating the TTN, in the field "Post-payment return card number" some incomprehensible code "2147 ******" was put down (I closed it with asterisks because it is not clear what kind of code it is) After the TTN was deleted, the strange code remained in this field "Postpayment return card number", that is, if you create a new TTN, the system already writes "There was a pardon. Field "cod_card_number" Not Valid" and you need to enter the card number manually If you enter a new order https://baza.cn.ua/admin/customorder/order/48424/justininvoice/ then the card is pulled up correctly there Can you fix this bug? [/quote] This topic has not been discussed in this thread. search for a relevant topic or create a new one [quote] Kupriyan Vladislav Valerievich wrote: 2. It was not possible to get from the system the opportunity to prescribe the amount of the overlay (Pіslyaplata) I tried it in different ways, but it writes empty in the TTN, with what combinations of the values \u200b\u200bof this can be achieved? [/quote] What was implemented on this topic is indicated above in the corresponding comment